CRITICISM OF “VISHISHTADVAITA VISLESHANA VIVECHANAM” At the outset, we would like to reteirate our respect for ShrI mAdhvAchArya and the gurus who succeeded him. That can be clearly seen from our Narayanastra blog where we have quoted shrI mAdhva’s bhAshyas on various topics. The relationship between Vishishtadvaitins and Dvaitins is fairly amicable and has been so over the ages. However, it cannot also be denied that the two traditions are rival schools of thought and hence, debates have happened. In this respect, one can say Dvaitins took the first step in attempting to refute certain concepts of Vishishtadvaita –Vyasa Tirtha, Jaya Tirtha, Vijayendra Tirtha and Raghavendra Swami were among the dvaita gurus who tried to establish that some of the tenets of Vishishtadvaita were flawed. However,one upmanship such as “x guru authored a work refuting Vishishtadvaita last, so it means Dvaita is correct” is not sufficient to claim victory since a cursory examination of the criticisms of dvaitins belies a stark ignorance of basic concepts of the tradition. It is necessary to understand the pUrvapakSha to refute it, otherwise, one would be chasing ghosts. And this is exactly what the Dvaita gurus are culpable of. For example, claiming Brahman is negatively affected by “dehanAsha“ due to sharIrAtma bhAva or saying Vishishtadvaita proposes “equality” of jIva with Brahman are basic errors in outlining the pUrvapakSha and as such, their refutations cannot be taken seriously. Even so, we wouldn’t have even embarked on this endeavor were it not for the fact that the author of “Vishishtadvaita Visleshana Vivecanam”, ShrI Keshava Rao Tadipatri, appears to be following the oft quoted criticisms of his gurus. Shri Tadipatri appears to be refuting some Vishishtadvaitin himself; it seems to be a debate of sorts between them, and this article is a compilation of his responses. However, we noticed that – 1) Shri Tadipatri lacks a fundamental knowledge of Vishishtadvaita, 2) The person he is arguing against appears to be a layman following Vishishtadvaita, who has also made errors in describing the philosophy. So basically, we have a non-issue here – neither ShrI Tadipatri nor his opponent can be considered knowledgeable enough to attempt “refutations”. However, even despite the voluminous nature of Shri Tadipatri’s write-up, we felt a critical analysis of his work wasnot necessary. No-one is going to convert to another tradition by persuasion on the internet. We, the authors of the Narayanastra blog, have always reteirated that it is not in our interest to refute other darShanas. It is actually a tedious process.But we felt we had to write a response when we saw that Shri Tadipatri, in addition to grossly misunderstanding Vishishtadvaita, freely makes statements such as this: “What the Viśiṣṭādvaitins did was labelling the pure devotees that were before Sri Rāmānuja as "Alwars" and falsely interpreted their works to suit the Viśiṣṭādvaita position. Kulasekhara Maharaja was never called ālwar before the advent of Sri Rāmānuja”

This prompted us to address the issue because it amounts to mudslinging and slander. It is clear that Shri Tadipatri has no knowledge of Azhwar Aruliccheyal, either from a historical or from a scholarly perspective. Judging from this statement, we doubt he even knows thenames of all the azhwars! We request our dvaitin friends to refrain from such slander unless they have read all the commentaries on the divya prabandham. The following answers shrI Tadipatri’s “criticisms”. Note that our style of response is not intended to deliberately show dvaita is wrong, but merely respond to the charges. We have not gone out of our way here. Before that, an outline of Vishishtadvaita philosophy is in order. BRIEF SUMMARY OF VISHISHTADVAITA Asesha chitachit vastu seshine sesha sAyine | nirmalAnanta kalyAna nidhaye vishnave namaha || Vishishtadvaita recognizes three realities (tattva traya)– chit or sentients (jIvAs), achit or insentient prakrti (mishra sattva and suddha sattva prakrtis) and Ishvara. Ishvara is sriman nArAyaNa, who is akhila hEya pratyanIka samastha kalyANa guNAtmaka. Chit and Achit are both the body of Ishvara according to the shruti as follows: Ya Atmani tishttan Atmana: antarO yam AtmA na vEda yasya AtmA sharIramya AtmAnam antarO yamayati sa ta AtmA antaryAmi amruta:" ~ brihadAraNyaka Upanishad. antaHsharIre nihito guhAyAmaja eko nityo yasya pR^ithivI sharIra.nyaH pR^ithivImantare sa.ncharan yaM pR^ithivI na veda || ~ SubalOpanishad Firstly, what is the definition of a “sharIra” or a body? In ordinary usage, it denotes the physical structures or forms of all living beings. The naiyAyikas define the body as the seat of sense organs, and the basis for pain and pleasure. This definition is faulty, as then it does not include material objects that can be bodies but have no sense organs. Also, pain and pleasure find locus in the self, and not the body. It cannot also be said that the definition of a body is “jaDa” since shAstra says “yasya Atma sharIraM”. SrI rAmAnuja defines “sharIra” as follows: “yasya cEtanasya yaddravyaM sarvAtmaNA svArthE niyantuM dhArayituM ca shakyaM taccheShataika svarUpaM ca tat tasya sharIraM” – “Any substance which a sentient self can completely control and support for its’ own purposes and which is entirely dependent on the self is called its’ sharIra”. So, mere dependence itself does not make an entity a “sharIra” as even an attendant may be dependent on his master. Only when total control is exercised by the self and the dependence lasts as long as the substance endures,itqualifies that substance to be called a body. What are the implications of saying jIvAtma is the sharIra of paramAtma? The following relationships arise due to the sharIrAtma bhAva:

1) AdheyatvA (i.e. being supported by a sarIrI): Existence of the sarIrA(jIva) is due tothe sarIrI (paramAtma) i.e. sarIrI supports the sarIrA. In other words, without a sarIrI, sarIrAceases to exist. 2) niyamyatvA (i.e. being controlled by a sarIrI): Not only that sarIrA (jIva) derives its existencefrom a sarIrI (paramAtma), it is also being controlled by the sarIrI. So, sarIrA acts as per thewill/desires of sarIrI. 3) seshatvA(i.e. existing for the pleasure of sarIrI): Not only that sarIrA (jIva) is supported and controlled by sarIrI (paramAtma), it exists only for the pleasure/will of sarIrI, i.e. sarIrI is sarIrA'sMaster and the sarIra is his servant. This is the essential nature of the sarIra. It is not enough to say that the self is dependent, but the essential nature of being a “sesha”, ie, serving him and existing solely for his will, is brought out by sharIrAtma bhAva. All the above relationships apply to prakrti and the Lord as well. But since prakrti is insentient as opposed to the sentient jIva who can willingly serve the Lord, it (prakrti) simply exists solely for the Lord’s will. When we say “exists for Lord’s will”, it does not mean the Lord, who is avApta-samastha-kAman, requires them to exist for him or derives some benefit from them. Rather, other entities can only exist in that manner as they have no independence, and the Lord simply accepts their services and makes them exist out of his krupa. The essential nature of the self is thus seshatva. The essential nature of the Lord is seshitva or ownership. The essential nature of the former is thus dependent on the Lord, whereas the latter is independent (for even if nothing other than the Lord exists, then he is the owner/master of himself, being dependent on no-one else. When other things exist, he is their master as well). In addition, another outcome of the sharIrAtma bhAva and that is aprthak siddhi – The jIva (sharIra) is inseparably associated with paramAtma and has no separate existence from the latter, much as the body is inseparably associated with the self. “sAmAnAdhikaraNyam” is also applicable due to sharIrAtma bhAva. Just as the self inside a body is referred to by the name of the body, all names belong to paramAtma which has everything as its’ body. For example, “Jack” refers to the the jIvA associated with the body identified as “Jack”. Similarly, all names refer not only to the various objects, but in their innermost analysis refer to paramAtma who has them as his body. Based on the above, we come to the following conclusion regarding the definition of a jIvAtma according to the shAstra: 1) The jIvAtma is known to be finite (aNu) and sentient (jnAna svarUpa) 2) The shAstra describes the jIva as a sharIra of paramAtma 3) This means the essential nature of the jIva is to be a servant (sesha) of the Lord

4) As the shAstra says the self is jnAna svarUpa, this realization of “I-ness” is nothing but the realization of “seshatva”, making “seshatva jnAna” the svarUpa of the jIva 5) As all jIvAs are the body of Ishvara, all are seshas and hence, all have identical natures, ie, there is no jIva svarUpa bhEda 6) If all are seshas and all are unchangeable in their essential nature, being bodies of the Lord, then the reason for differences between them is due to changes in their attributive knowledge which is affected by karmas, vAsaNas and ruchi-s. 7) Thus the jIvA has attributive knowledge (dharma-bhUta-jnAna) as his inseparable attribute to cognize external objects. (Note: Lord also has DBJ being a sentient entity, but his DBJ is eternally infinite and unaffected by karmas. Brahman knows external objects through its’ DBJ) The differences in jIvAs are due to contractions and expansions of the dharma bhUta jnAna due to karmas, which is explained by Saunaka Muni in srI vishNu dharma as follows: “yathA na kriyatE jyotsnA malaprakShAlanAt manEh| doSha prahANat na jnAnaM AtmanaH kriyatE tathA….” (~vishNu dharma 104.55-56, quoted in srI bhAshya) Meaning: “As the lustre of the gem is not created by the act of polishing, so the own intelligence (DBJ) of the Self is not created by the putting off of imperfections. As the well is not the cause of the production of rain water, but only serves to manifest water which already exists—for whence should that originate which is not? Thus knowledge and the other attributes of the Self are only manifested through the putting off of evil qualities; they are not produced, for they are eternal” The DBJ is likened to the luster that issues out from the gem (self) upon cleansing of dirt (karmas). So, contraction of the dharma bhUta jnAna due to karmas results in lack of knowledge of one’s true nature as a servant/property of the Lord. This is the “stealing of the atma” alluded to by smriti. A body is the property of the self, similarly the jIva is a property of the Lord. Hence to consider ourselves as independent or not his servant is a “theft” of the Lord’s property. So, how do we attain that jnAna which leads to liberation? By realization of the sharIrAtma bhAva and hence, seshatva, which then results in a natural love of the Lord, leading one to adopt one of 2 upAyAs according to the shAstra: "bhaktyA paramayA vA-pi prapattyA vA mahAmathe prApyoham na anyathA prApyO mama kainkarya lipsubhihi"(~ Ahirbudhnya Samhita, pAncharAtra Agama) The Lord says that he accepts either bhakti yOga or prapatti, which are two independent jnAna viSeshaNa upAyAs, as means to moksha (though prapatti can also be an anga for bhakti yoga). Both these upAyAs are included in “nAnya pantha ayanAya vidyatE:” The description of these upAyAs would span several pages and hence we skip it. Interested people can refer to nikShepa raksha of srI vedAnta desikan where all objections to this have been answered.

One realizes his seshatva being theessential nature which then allows him to develop a natural love of the Lord, which is then fostered by meditation on undertaking these upAyAs. Karmas are destroyed on account of this as gItAchAryan says: Tesham eva anukampa artham aham agyana jam tamah I Nashayami atma bhavastah gyana deepena bhasvata II (Gita 10-11) Extinction of karmAs by practicing bhakti yOga or prapatti leads to moksha. What happens in moksha? The DBJ, being devoid of association with karmas, expands to infinity, resulting in omniscience of the jIvA. This is mentioned by the Upanishads: bAlAgrashatabhAgasya shatadhA kalpitasya cha | bhAgo jIvaH sa vij~neyaH sa chAnantyAya kalpate || (~Sve Up. 5-9) Meaning: The proportion of the jIva is to be known as equal to one hundredth part of the one hundredth part of the tip of the hair. He, verily becomes capable of attaining infinity (dharma-bhUtajnAna). The Chandogya says: sarvaM ha pashyaH pashyati sarvamApnoti (7-26-2) “He sees all” refers to omniscience. As svarUpa is aNu, it can only be said that with expanded DBJ, he is omniscient, which only implies infinitely expanded DBJ. “sarvaM” does not refer to the Lord here as others interpret it. This will be explained later in the document. What does the mukta do with infinite knowledge? Chandogya says - sa ekadhA bhavati tridhA bhavati pa~nchadhA saptadhA navadhA chaiva punashchaikAdashaH smR^itaH shataM cha dasha chaikashcha sahasrANi cha (7-26-2) He becomes one-fold, many-fold, etc. This statement says the mukta can assume infinite number of bodies in moksha. How can a jIva, who is aNu svarUpa, dwell in multiple bodies? Answer is, he doesn’t. He remains aNu, but pervades these bodies by his DBJ and controls them by his jnAna. This implies again, that DBJ is infinite as otherwise one cannot control infinite bodies. Only the Lord who has vibhu svarUpa can manifest in infinite bodies and be present in them. What does he do with these bodies and expanded DBJ in moksha? Lakshmana says:Bhavamsthu saha vaidehya girisanushu ramsyathe Aham sarvam karishyami jagrathaha svapathascha the (~vAlmiki rAmAyaNa) LakshmaNa tells the Lord “ahaM sarvaM karishyAmi” – he will serve Rama whether he is awake or asleep. Service at all times, places and states is the goal of a mukta and is implied here. Being omniscient and assuming infinite bodies, the mukta serves the Lord in infinite ways at all times, places and

states.The mukta has free movement in all worlds and he is unaffected by karma, so he can serve the Lord wherever he is, not just the infinite realm of paramapada. What is the outcome of such “infinite service” at all times, states and places in moksha? sOsnutE sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipascitA ~ TaittirIya Upanishad The mukta enjoys all auspicious qualities united with Brahman. “kAmAn” here refers to the auspicious qualities, as the jivA, being of the nature of seshatva, has no other desire in moksha but to experience Brahman by serving him. The idea is we serve him, he becomes happy, we see his happiness/auspicious attributesand experience Ananda. The supreme goal is to see the Lord’s smile on his face after receiving our services. Infinite DBJ to experience infinite attributes of Brahman leads to infinite Ananda and thus, there is “Ananda sAmyaM” according to the sUtra: “bhoga mAtra sAmya ligAnchaa” Clearly says that the ultimate similarity is only in terms of the Ananda(Bliss) which is that of the Lord and not in terms of svarUpa. It does not mean the similarity is only in terms of enjoying Ananda that is limited for the jIva and infinite for paramAtma (thus implying Ananda bhEda) but that the mukta’s highest similarity is only the equality of bliss with Brahman derived from experiencing his kalyANa guNAs and serving him. But there is no share in “jagatvyApAra” since the jIvA remains an eternal servant of Brahman and there is no equality of “status”. In addition, the jIva’s abilities to serve Brahman, the infinitely expanded DBJ, etc are all dependent on the Lord and happen by his grace, whereas the latter is independent. This, in a nutshell, is Vishishtadvaita. Let us now look at ShrI Tadipatri’s “criticisms”. KEYS TO UNDERSTAND THE WRITE-UP: -

“PP” refers to “pUrvapakShin”, ie, the dvaitin, shrI Tadipatri. “Author” mentioned in some places also refers to the pUrvapakShin. “SD” refers to SiddhAntha, our reply. pUrvapakSha (PP) is mentioned in red. SiddhAntha (SD) is mentioned in black. “DBJ” means dharma-bhUta-jnAna. INTRODUCTION

The Author begins his refutation by proceeding to outline the aspects of what he perceives is the philosophy of Vishishtadvaita. In doing so, he has unfortunately made some glaring errors which seems to indicate an improper understanding of the pUrvapakSa. This is highlighted below. Additionally, the reader may notice that some words, phrases, sentences and concepts are repeated several times in places. This is only due to the fact that the pUrvapakShin often raises the same

objection or different objections which have the same answer, that we had to repeat certain things. In addition, sometimes repetition has occurred because the particular concept is very important and it is necessary that it is understood clearly. In such a long document, repetition is not a blemish, especially when it clarifies one’s position over an important topic. SHARIRAATMA BHAVA AND “DEHANASHA” OBJECTION PP: Viśiṣṭādvaita says that the jīva and Brahman are same or nondifferent in the sense that they are equal. SD: Talk about beginning with a bang, this is a horrific understanding of the pUrvapakSha by the author. Vishishtadvaita does not consider jIva or Brahman to be same, non-different or equal. Though both are jnAnAndamaya svarUpa, the jIva is anu svarUpa or limited and possesses dharma-bhUta-jnAna, whereas paramAtma is vibhu svarUpa with dharma-bhUta-jnAna (henceforth referred to as “DBJ”). Even the intrinsic Ananda of the jIvA is finite, whereas brahmAnanda is infinite, but the jIva experiences brahmAnanda in the state of moksha, which results in Ananda-sAmya. There is no equality in status or prowess. PP: Viśiṣṭādvaita says that they appear to be unequal because of DBJ not expanding to infinity - that is before liberation. SD: This is only partly right. The jIvAs are unequal to paramAtma regardless of whether their DBJ is infinitely expanded or contracted. There is never a time when the jIvAtma will be “equal” in status or prowess to paramAtma as the former is the body of the latter. The very expansion of DBJ to infinity is due to the grace of the Lord. The experience is of his kalyANa guNas only. PP: Viśiṣṭādvaita says that when dharma bhuta jnana expands to infinity, the jīva becomes equal to Brahman. This happens in mokṣa. SD: This is again erroneous. The jIvAtma’s DBJ does indeed expand to infinity, but it remains subservient to paramAtma as such extended DBJ is only by his grace. Furthermore, the jIvAtma’s essential nature is that of “seshatva” or servitude to paramAtma in the state of moksha. By its’ DBJ, the jIvAtma only serves him at all times, places and states (which is the purpose of infinite DBJ) and experiences the infinite auspicious attributes of Brahman, and thus attains infinite Ananda, which again is dependent on Brahman only. PP: Viśiṣṭādvaita says that the jīva needs the grace of the Lord for making its dharma bhuta jnana expand infinitely in mokṣa, where the jīva has six qualities like jñāna and Ananda equal to God. SD: Almost correct. But wrong with respect to Ananda. The Ananda of the jIvAtma in moksha comes not from its’ own nature. That is to say, the jIva does have intrinsic Ananda (experienced by kaivalyArtis desiring that bliss), butit is limited and not the primary object of experience in the highest moksha. What

is experienced are the auspicious attributes of Brahman, which are infinite, and thus experience of infinite attributes with infinite jnAna confers infinite Ananda on the jIvA. Thus, the Ananda is derived from Brahman. With respect to jnAna, the jivAtma has “seshatva jnAna” as svarUpa. Brahman’s inherent nature is seshitva/ownership. Let us now look at the objections raised against Vishishtadvaita. PP: With their understanding that jīva is the śarīra of Iśvara and that Iśvara is aware of the difference between Him and his śarīra, there is difference between Iśvara and jīvas. Iśvara and jīvas are sentient and prakṛti is jaḍa or inert and so they must accept 2) and 3). They must be accepting 4) as well as there is difference between one jaḍa and another no matter how similar they are. The difference between individual jīvas is our anubhava and I am sure that they will not seek identity between their jīvas and the jīvas of their gurus. SD: The difference between one piece of jaDa and another is temporary since prakrti is perishable. By difference, we mean difference in terms of svarUpa, we do not mean individuality is destroyed. Once the Universe is dissolved into the subtle state, one piece of matter is indistinguishable from another. Then when a new universe emerges as the gross state, it is not necessary that one piece of matter which was Iron once, now in the subtle state, should come out again as Iron, in the gross state again instead of say, stone. There is of course, always a distinct individuality in that two pieces of matter never merge to become one, but two pieces could be dissimilar or similar based on circumstances. With respect to jIvAs, the differences only exist because of karma and contracted DBJ. The jIvAs are intrinsically identical with the essential nature of seshatva, as reteirated by a shAstra vAkya quoted by AchAryAs: nAyam dEva na martyO vA na tiryak sthAvarOpi vA / j~nAnAnandamayastvAtmA shEShO hi paramAtmanah// ~ (MahAbhArata, AshvamEdhika 43-13) The self is neither god nor man, neither beast nor tree. Its essential nature is knowledge and bliss and it is entirely dependent on the Supreme Being and exists solely for His purposes (shESha). Other quotes from srI manavAla mAmunigal’s commentary on “mumukkshupadi”. (The below slokas are quoted by Vishishtadvaita AchAryAs and hence authentic). svatvamAtmaNi saMjna jAthama svAtmitvaM paramAtmani stithaM (~ Attributed to viShNu tattvam) Meaning: The soul’s nature is to be property, Brahman’s nature is to be the owner. AtmadAsyaM harEsca svAmyaM svabhAvajnasca sadA smara ~ (Attributed to viShNu tattvam) Always remember the soul’s servitude and hari’s inherent ownership. dAsabhUta svatassarvE hyAtmanAH paramAtmanaH nAnyathA lakShaNaM tEshAM banthE mokshEsi tathaiva ca (~ Attributed to Harita Smriti)

Meaning: All souls are by nature servants to paramAtman. No other definition (lakShaNa) applies to them in bondage as well as mOkSha (Note: The first part of the slOka, “dAsabhUta svatassarvE hyAtmanAH paramAtmanaH”, also occurs in the mantra rAja pada stOtra of Ahirbudhnya Samhita). These are shAstra vAkyas quoted by vishishtadvaita pUrvAchAryAs like srI manavAla mAmunigal. In the harivamSha, in the section on bAnasura yuddha, the shiva-jvAra after being vanquished by krishNa says: ahamasurakulapramAthinAtripurahareNahareNanirmitaH|raNashirasivinirjitastvayAprabhurasi deva tavAsmiki~NkaraH || Meaning: I was created by Hara, the destroyer of TripurA. Now I have been conquered by you. You, DevA, are now my master and I am your servant! The reason for saying “Hara, destroyer of Tripura” etc have several inner meanings pertaining to bhakti yOga, but that is not relevant here. Note that the jvAra, upon being defeated by krishNa, acknowledges his essential nature of being a “sesha” to the Lord, who is his master. This is not some temporary statement of submission, but a recognition of the eternal “sesha-seshi” sambandha between the jIva and paramAtma once ego of the jIva is defeated by the Lord. Individual jIvAs are distinct, but identical in nature. In the state of moksha, we attain the same level of Ananda (infinite bliss from experience of infinite kalyANa guNAs of Brahman) and omniscience as that of our gurus. However, in moksha, the jIva serves Brahman and his preceptors, who are the reason why he has attained moksha. Even if our jnAna and Ananda is equal to our preceptors, they are the ones who helped us reach moksha and thus they remain higher in status for eternity. Hence, thereis no equality with our gurus in status. PP: The assertion that Bhagavān has jīva as His body is apramāṇika. Not only is there no pramāṇa for that, it even goes against all pramāṇas. SD: The author is refuting the Vishishtadvaitic interpretation of the Katopanishad mantra (2-2-9) which will be quoted later, by saying sharIrAtma bhAva is unsupported by the shAstra and apramANika. He fails to notice that the sharIrAtma bhAva is clearly delineated in the antaryAmi brAhmaNa of the brihadAraNyaka Upanishad as follows: Ya Atmani tishttan Atmana: antarO yam AtmA na vEda yasya AtmA sharIramya AtmAnam antarO yamayati sa ta AtmA antaryAmi amruta:" ~ brihadAraNyaka Upanishad. The Subala Upanishad also eloquently dwells on sharIrAtma bhAva: antaHsharIre nihito guhAyAmaja eko nityo yasya pR^ithivI sharIra.nyaH pR^ithivImantare sa.ncharan yaM pR^ithivI na veda ||

yasyApaH sharIra.nyo.apontare sa.ncharanyamApo na viduH || yasya tejaH sharIra.nyastejontare sa.ncharan ya.n tejo na veda || yasya vAyuaH sharIra.nyo vAyumantare sa.ncharan ya vAyurna veda || yasyAkAshaH sharIra.nya AkAshamantare sa.ncharan yamAkAsho na veda || yasya manaH sharIra.nyo manontare sa.ncharan yaM mano na veda || yasya buddhiH sharIra.nyo buddhimantare sa.ncharan yaM buddhirna veda || yasyAha~NkAraH sharIra.nyo.aha~NkAramantare sa.ncharan yamaha~NkAro na veda || yasya chitta.n sharIra.n yashchittamantare sa.ncharan ya.n chitta.n na veda || yasyAvyakta.n sharIra.nyo.avyaktamantare sa.ncharan yamavyakta.n na veda || yasyAkShara.n sharIra.nyo.akSharamantare sa.ncharan yamakShara.n na veda || yasya mR^ityuH sharIra.nyo mR^ityumantare sa.ncharan yaM mR^ityurna veda || sa eSha sarvabhUtAntarAtmApahatapApmA divyo deva eko nArAyaNaH || “yasya Atma sharIraM”  This means that the AtmA is the sharIra (body) of paramAtma. In the above subalOpanishad quotes, “akshara” in “yasyAkShara.n sharIra.n”refers to the jIvAtma as well, since the jIva is indestructible. What are the implications? 1) A body is dependent on the self for its’ existence, as it is burnt to ashes/completely useless without the self. 2) A body is inseparably associated (aprthak siddha) with the self, and has no separate existence. Inseparability indicates difference and hence, the body is distinct (bhEda) from the self. 3) The body is controlled by the self and cannot ever be independent. 4) The body serves (seshatva) the self. 5) The self is the antaryAmin of the body, and the body has no purpose outside of serving the self, and cannot sustain itself without having the self indwelling inside it. 6) All names which denote the body, denote the self (sarva-sabda-vAchyatva). Thus, the attributes of the jIvAtma are to be sustained by, controlled by, dependent on and servile to paramAtma on account of being its’ body. It is not enough to say he controls the jIva, the Upanishads stress that he controls the jIva as it is his body, which gives it all of the above characteristics. Prakrti is his sharIra and also has all the above. But while the jIva is sentient and thus serves the paramAtma in addition to existing for his purposes, prakrti is insentient and it only exists solely for the Lord’s purpose. PP:More over not even a tiny trace of sharIrAtmabhAva is present in the Katopanishad

Verse. yathA = just as agniH = fire god or agni deva(presiding deity of fire) ekaH = only one bhuvanam prviShTo = entered the world

rUpaM rUpam = every form (of fire) pratirUpo babhUva = became pratibimba (of fire) tathA = similarly sarva-bhUtAnatarAtmA = One who is inner-controller(Lord) of all beings ekaH = only one rUpaM rUpam = every form (of Jiva) pratirUpo babhUva = became pratibimba (of Lord) bahishcha = also outside (meaning different) Where did "assumes separate forms in respect of different shapes" and "assumes a form in respect of each shape" come from? SD: The author gives the dvaita interpretation of the katOpanishad mantra. We have seen that sharIrAtma bhAva is mentioned in the Upanishads..Let us see the Vishishtadvaitic interpretation for this katOpanishad vAkya: agnir-yathaiko bhuvanam pratishTo rUpam rUpam pratirUpo babhUva / ekastathA sarva-bhūtantarAtmA rUpam rUpam pratirUpo bahiSca Meaning: Just as fire (yathA agniH), though one (ekaH), having entered the world (bhuvanaM prviShTo), has become such (babhUva) that its’ form (pratirUpo) is present in every form (rUpaM rUpaM), similarly the one inner self of all entities (sarvabhUtAntarAtma) has become such (babhUva) that its’ form of antaryAmin (pratirUpo) is present in every form (rUpaM rUpaM) and outside too (bahishcha) The Upanishad teaches the idea that paramAtma is the inner self of all. Fire element has entered into the Universe on account of pervasion due to tripartite combination. The fire is in all material things. Similarly, that one paramAtman pervades all entities in his corresponding form as antaryAmin (pratirupa) residing within all entities. He pervades them outside too. One must make a distinction between antaryAmin and antarAtma. The Lord is “sarvAntarAtma” in the sense that he has the jIvAs and jagat as his body and is the one bearing them as their inner controller. At the same time, he manifests as antaryAmin in each individual sentient and non-sentient thing in the Universe, and has that entity as his body in this state as well. Thus, antarAtma and antaryAmin are two forms of the Lord. pratirUpa in the case of fire refers to the modified element post-tripartite combination. pratirUpa in the case of the Lord who is “sarvabhUtAntarAtma” refers to his corresponding form as antaryAmin in different gross states. It is a simple concept and does not require the forcible insertion of a “bimbapratibimba” vAda. A simple way to illustrate it – A jIvAtma enters a body and is called “Jack”. The name occurs because of association with the body. At the same time, this jIvAtma is the body of paramAtma and the former is

inseparably associated with the latter. So, it means paramAtma has entered the body (by being the antaryAmin of the jIvA) and is designated as “Jack”. The reason why antaryAmin is mentioned as pratirUpa of the Lord is because the Lord as the Cause is the Brahman having cit and acit in subtle form as his body, whereas the Lord as the AntaryAmin is the Effect who has cit and acit in gross forms as his body. The Cause is the Effect because the Effect is just a different state of the Cause. PP: "this assuming a form with respect to shapes" has nothing to do with shariratmabhava. Atma does not have a shape. So, sharIra does not assume a form in respect of Atma. SharIra has a shape, but Atma does not assume a form in respect of sharIra. SD: Vishishtadvaitins do not use the word “shape”. I have provided the proper translation. The Bimba-Pratibimba theory of Dvaita is not valid because the antaryAmitva (inner controllership) of the Lord is effecitively explained as “yasya AtmA sharIraM, yasya prithvi sharIraM” in the antaryAmi brAhmaNa. This declares the absolute inseparability, dependency, inferiority and servitude of the jIvAtma without the need for image/reflectiontheories, which find no mention anywhere in the shAstra. That “pratirUpa” occurs in conjunction with sarvabhUtAntarAtma and refers to the antaryAmin form of the Lord. PP: Let us list four possibilities 1. Bhagavān is bimba and jīva are precisely Pratibimba. 2. Bhagavān is like bimba and jīva are not exactly Pratibimba,but they arelike Pratibimba, in the sense that jīva has dependency onBhagavān andpossesses some of the charactaristics of Bhagavān. 3. Jīva is the body of Bhagavān. 4. Jīva is like the body of Bhagavān in the sense that Bhagavānis inside thejīva. Both 1.and 2.do not attribute any flaw to Bhagavān. 4. also doesnot attribute any flaw to Bhagavān as it is drawing only acomparison. SD: 3) is correct. 4) is missing the real meaning of “sharIra”. When jIva is said to be the body of bhagavAn, it does not only mean he is inside the jIva. Otherwise, shAstra would have been content enough to say “Ya Atmani tishttan Atmana: antarO” without further saying, “yasya Atma sharIraM”. The definition of a “sharIra” is that it is supported by, controlled by and exists for the sake of the self dwelling within it. So, the essential nature of the body is to exist for the sake of the self, and thus the essential nature of the jIva which is the body of paramAtma, is to exist for the sake of the latter and thus “seshatva” is its’ nature. This is the implication of saying “something is the body of another”.

The best you can try to dodge the normal and obvious interpretation is by using 4) and saying “He is inside the jIva like the self in a body”, but that again, yields the same meaning, for then, the fruition of the analogy would be that like a body containing a self, the jIva is supported by, controlled by and exists for the sake of paramAtma, thus having the nature of seshatva. For it is already explained he is in everything, so the body-soul analogy has to mean something more. Thus, even taking it metaphorically or in the way of an analogy, you end up with the same conclusion that all jIvAs, like bodiesof selves, are identical in their essential nature of existing for the sake of Brahman and serving him, ie, seshatva! Let us forget for a second that Bimba-Pratibimba vAda is a theory that does not even have a direct pramANa like sharIrAtma bhAva. The theory itself is flawed as it fails to provide a complete explanation of the nature of jivAtma. “Pratibimbatva” of jIvAtma only explains the dependence of an entity, but it does not highlight what is the essential nature of that entity. A dependent entity need not necessarily be a servant of paramAtma, and thus, it does not establish jIva svarUpa. While mAdhvas aver that a reflection is “drawn” to the object, which apparently validates bhakti, the reflection does not exist to serve the object in all ways, states and places, which is the true nature of the jIvAtma (as per sharIrAtma bhAva) and obviously that which motivates bhakti. A reflection also does not love an image, so it fails to explain the love an upAsaka has for paramAtma. But the sharIrAtma bhAva, as outlined previously, establishes the atyanta pArtantrtya/seshatva of jivAtma which is to serve and exist according to the will of the Lord. Prakrti is also the body of paramAtma, but being insentient, it exists according to the will of the Lord. As seshatva is the nature of the self on account of sharIrAtma bhAva, love of the Lord who is his self (and he being his body) is but natural which will arise on such knowledge and hence, the self indulges in bhakti and kaimkarya. Thus, flaws do exist in bimba-pratibimba vAda. In fact, all the conclusions of this theory such as dependence of jIva on paramAtma, etc (excepting inequality of Ananda which is veda virOdha) can be subsumed in sharIrAtma bhAva itself, which encompasses every logical relationship between jIva and Brahman. PP: But the position 3. taken by Viśiṣṭādvaita attributes many flaws to Bhagavān SD: It does not. PP: Bhagavān has one extra layer than jīva and so is worse off. Even granting that Bhagavān does not have any abhimāna for his body (namely jīva and other bodies of jīva), nevertheless, He is equipped with the bodies. SD: No idea what “one extra layer means”. This assumes that bhagavAn gains something by associating with jIvAtma which is wrong. It is the opposite, he associates with the jIvAs and jagat, because just as a body cannot survive without the self, the jIvas and jagat cannot exist without being inseparably associated with paramAtma. Him being their sharirin and them being his sharIra is what keeps them existing. In contrast, just as a self can exist

without a body, paramAtma can exist without these two entities as his bodies. Thus, he associates with us for our sake, not for his sake. It is his causeless mercy and desire to make us exist. We have no independent existence, but he does. BhagavAn possessing them as his bodies does not affect him as he is “apahatapApma” by nature. Bodies only affect selves when they have karma. So what is the flaw in him possessing these entities as his body when he has no karma and associates by his will? PP: While going to mokṣa, jīva has cast off all his bodies, but Bhagavān has jīva as His body and so in a way He has eternal bondage of the bodies. That too in mokṣa itself, He has as many bodies as the jīvas in mokṣa. SD: This statement makes a complete hash of the sharIrAtma bhAva and betrays a complete ignorance of how the concept works. Everything is the body of Brahman, be it sri vaikunta, jIva, prakrti, etc. He is the antaryAmin of the muktAs and nityAs even in sri vaikunta. At the same time, he is also manifesting before the jIvAs, in a beautiful suddha sattva form, seated in a golden hall, etc as the Upanishads say. This is a simple concept that does not require such a convoluted misunderstanding to “refute” it. Him having jIvAs and jagat as his body does not mean he cannot manifest in his own supernal form. And at all times, states and places, everything is his body. And him having the Universe as his body does not imply bondage as he is free of karma. The body-self relationship is not reciprocal, but one way. We need him as the self or we won’t exist. He does not need us as his body, but assumes us as his body to make us exist due to his grace and for sport. PP: The jīvas have the property of dehanāṣa (or destruction of body). Now the Lord has jīva as the body. Even though jīva has no destruction, his bodies are undergoing destruction. This means these bodies, which are also effectively the bodies of Bhagavān are also undergoing destruction. That means Bhagavān also has the flaw of "dehanāṣa". SD: Key word for paramAtma is “apahatapApma”. He associates with his bodies by his own will and not out of karma.Thus, as “dehanAsha” does not affect him and indeed, as he is the one causing this “nAsha” by his own will, it is not a doSha, and he, being different from the body, remains “avikAra”. Explanation below. The Lord not only has the jIvA as his body, but he also has prakrti as his body directly. Certainly, prakrti is subject to change and destruction, which is effected by the Lord. But unlike the jIvAtma which associates with its’ body due to karma as opposed to free will and thus is forcibly affected by changes to its’ body, paramAtma has no karma and hence remains unblemished despite changes to his body, which he has associated out of his own free will to make it exist and has no requirement from it. The subalOpanishad declares everything is his body (yasya pR^ithivI sharIra.n, etc)and then adds “esha sarvabhUtAntarAtma apahatapApma divyO deva eko nArAyaNa:” – Though he has everything as his body and is “sarvabhUtAntarAtma”, he is unaffected by the changes happening to the body as he is

“apahatapApma”. It is to specifically clarify that him having the jIvAs and jagat as his bodies does not affect him at all that the Upanishad says “apahatapApma”, thus refuting silly objections in this regard. Since he has no karma, he is not affected by changes to his body which means that he remains “avikAra” which is “akhila hEya pratyanIka samasta kalyANa guNAtmaka” at all times, places and states. Destruction/change of prakrti which is his body is thus not a flaw. This is because the Lord is different from his body, and association with a body is not due to karma, but by his own free will. And he is the one controlling such destruction/changes etc while remaining unaffected. Thus, shAstra statements declaring him to be “avikAra” only refer to him always being undiminished and full of kalyANa guNAs everywhere. His body does undergo changes as the shAstra does not deny that prakrti, which is his body, undergoes destruction and changes. The destruction of jagat which is his body is effected by his own will, and he is unaffected by it. shAstra says the Jagat is his body. shAstra accepts Jagat is destroyed by the Lord. shAstra declares the Lord is free of karma. Therefore, put these together and arrive at the conclusion that all these mean that changes to the body of the Lord do not affect him, unlike others who are under karma. Statements in the shAstra such as “AdityavarNam tamasaH parastAd” which declare his auspicious body to be golden and beyond prakrti refer not to these bodies (jIvAs and prakrti), but to his own auspicious body which he assumes out of his own will to exhibit his kalyANa guNas to his devotees. This body is “prakrti” but made of pure sattva, as opposed to the other, lower prakrti which is mixed with rajas and tamas. This body is also different from the Lord and again, it is not assumed for his own benefit, but for the benefit of his devotees. Even this body is capable of change, ie, like how the short statured vAmana became the huge trivikrama. It is the Lord, who is different from his body, being divyAtma jnAnAndamaya svarUpa with sakala kalyANa guNas as his attributes, who is unchanging or”avikAra”. PP: Not only jīva, but the Viśiṣṭādvaitins also claim that Jagat is the body of Bhagavān. That means when the Jagat is destroyed during Pralaya, that also is effectively dehanāṣa for Bhagavān. SD: See above. The flaw of dehanAsha only applies if: 1)bhagavAn has karma and is affected by it, 2) If the body is assumed by himinvoluntarily/forcibly like the jIva as opposed to free will, 3) If he has something to gain from the body, 4) If he is identical to his body, 5) If he cannot exist without the body. Vishishatdvaita accepts none of the above. PP: Sri Krishna says in Gīta avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanumāśritam | paraṁ bhāvamajānanto mama bhūtamaheśvaram || Gītā - 9-11 SD: That refers to the fact that the Lord during his avatArAs is mistaken by people as human when in reality he has a non-material body during these avatArAs. It also refers to the fact that people mistake him to be acting out of karma when all his activities are due to his own will. No relation to the current subject, quite strange the author quotes it.

PP: Since there are all kinds of animals, birds, trees and insects and other living beings, God having those jīvas also as His bodies, must be construed as having their bodies also as His bodies. (The author Quotes Gita 2-18 again on a mistaken belief to substantiate the “dehanAsa” argument). SD: Of course, everything is his body. This has all been explained patiently above. He has the jIvAs and jagat as his body as the “antarAtma”. At the same time, he is the indweller in every living being separately, in every molecule even, having them as his bodies and is the “antaryAmin”.There is nothing that is not his body. In addition,Gita 2-18 refers to the individual self under karma and not paramAtma. Again, no relation to the subject. BIMBA PRATIBIMBA VADA AND ITS PRAMANAS The author now addresses the concept of viSesa vs aprthak siddhi. He first elaborates the dvaita viewpoint in a lengthy manner and then eventually provides what he sees as pramAnAs for bimba pratibimba vAda. The following are the so-called proofs for the Bimba-Pratibimba vAda and my answers given as well. PP: Kaṭhopaniṣat(कठोप�नषत ्) says ◌्तोपननषत)◌ा says - agniryathaiko bhuvanam pratiṣṭho rūpam rūpam pratirūpo babhūva | ekastathā sarva-bhūtāntarātmā rūpam rūpam pratirūpo bahiśca || Kaṭhopaniṣat - 2-2-9 SD: This was already explained to indicate the Lord’s entry (as the self of the jIvA) into gross states. “yasya Atma sharIraM” and “yasya prithvi sharIraM” in brihadAraNyaka Upanishad validate that AtmA, prakrti, etc are bodies of the Lord. “esha sarvabhUtAntarAtma apahatapApma divyO deva eko nArAyaNaH” in the Subala Upanishad states that the Lord is “sarvabhUtAntarAtma” and yet “apahatapApma”, which shows that despite having them as his sharIrA and controlling them as the antaryAmin, he is unaffected by changes to the bodies as he is devoid of karma. PP: According to the first sloka of the bhAgavata: ātmasṛṣṭi (आत्मसःन`) - The Lord creates His own forms - which is like lighting one lamp

from another - every lamp is full and so every avatāra of Lord is full. When one lamp is lit from another lamp, the prior one does not diminish. the Jīva sṛṣṭi (जुषीवसःन` ) - Jīvas are pratibimbas and so vāri (water) is mentioned. He gives bodies for his pratibimba jīvas.

SD: There is no mention of “pratibimba” in that sloka. This is not a proof of Bimba-Pratibimba vAda but an elaboration of concepts perfectly acceptable to vishishtadvaita. Refer to the vIrarAghavIyaM

commentary on the bhAgavataM for the vishishtadvaitic interpretation of this sloka, it has no relevance here. PP: (More pramANas). cetanābhāsako jīvaḥ paramaścetano hariḥ | svatantratvāt svatantro hi naiva doṣeṇa lipyate ||" - Kūrmapurāṇa "The tiny jīva is alpa cetana and just reflection of paramacetana Sri Hari, because He is independent. Due to His independence, even though He is present inside the jīva, He is untouched by the flaws like sorrow." SD: Translation is wrong. The correct translation is as follows.. cetanābhāsako jīvaḥ paramaścetano hariḥ | svatantratvāt svatantro hi naiva doṣeṇa lipyate ||" - Kūrmapurāṇa Meaning: The jIva makes itself appear/shine out (Self-luminous) as a sentient (cEtanAbhAsaka) (on account of) Hari (who) is the Supreme Self (paramaH) and the inner controller of the jIva that is his body (cEtana). Due to his independence, even though he is present inside the jIva, he is untouched by the doshas (such as sorrow etc due to karma). “cEtanAbhAsaka” should be split as “cEtana + AbhAsaka”. The term “cEtana” clarifies that the jIva is of the form of a finite entity having consciousness (svarUpa jnAna) as its’ nature and also has attributive knowledge (dharma-bhUta-jnAna) as an attribute. The term “AbhAsaka” refers to “making to appear” or “causing to shine out”. It implies that the jIva is self-luminous as it manifests itself by itself. The AchAryAs describe the jIva as “svasmai bhAsamAnatva” – self-luminous. Shuddha sattva is self-luminous, but lacks “I-ness” thus it is insentient. In contrast, the jIva is not only self-luminous, but manifests itself to itself (I-ness) and thus is sentient. That is the reason for declaring the jIva is both self-luminous and sentient. The author takes the word “cEtanAbhAsaka” and interprets “AbhAsa” as “reflection”. This is not right. Now, the jIva is self-luminous and a conscious entity on account of Hari. Who is Hari? He is “paramacEtana” –The word is split as “paramaH” and “cEtanaH”. It is not a compound word as the author assumes wrongly. These are two separate terms qualifying Hari. “paramaH” – The Lord is “paramaH” because he is the supreme self and does not have anyone as his inner self. He is independent. This means that though he has the cEtana as his body, he is not affected

by the body or bound by it. That is the implied meaning here, since the latter part of the sloka itself clarifies this. “cEtana” – This term means “cEtanAtma” and refers to Hari as the inner controller of the jIvA who is “cEtana” as mentioned in “cEtanAbhAsaka”, with the cEtana being the body of such a Hari who is “paramaH”. That is to say, Hari is the inner controller of the “cEtana” or jIvAtma that is his body. By virtue of sharIrAtma bhAva and sAmAnAdhikaraNya, terms denoting the body denote the self and thus, “cEtana” refers to the innerself of the cEtana (jIva) which is Hari. Although Hari is also a cEtana, the direct interpretation does not suit the context, as “paramaH” does not qualify “cEtana” here. Thus, it refers to the innerself of the previous entity referred to as “cEtana” (the jIva) and highlights that the Lord is the inner controller of the jIva who is his body. Calling Hari the innerself of the cEtana, clarifies that the jIva as the body is thus dependent on, supported by and subservient to the Lord who is his inner controller which again resonates with the latter part of the slOka. Also, being a “cEtana” (sentient) that manifests itself as “I” and the body of Hari, it establishes that “seshatvam” in the form of servitude (kinkara) and existing for the sake of the self (Hari) is the essential nature of the jIva as well. Whereas prakrti, being insentient, cannot offer services (kaimkarya). But as prakrti is also his body, it does have seshatva as its essential nature in the form of existing solely to be used as he pleases. 1) The first part of the slOka is similar to the shruti vAkya “nityO nityAnAm cEtanas cetanAnAm”. The Lord is the indweller of the sentient jIva as he has the jIva as his body and thus theexistence of the jIva itself arises from him. 2) Now, that sloka, anticipates a pUrvapakSha – “Is not the Lord affected by the jIvA suffering effects of karma, etc if he associates with the sentients as his body and dwells in them?”, so, the next part of the sloka says, “Due to his independence, even though he is present inside the jIva, he is untouched by the flaws." This means he is devoid of karma and is supremely independent in the sense he does not derive anything from the jIva which is his body.So, even if the jIva, which is his body, undergoes changes in its’ dharma-bhUta-jnAna due to karmas, the Lord is not affected, being devoid of karma. Ironic that the pUrvapakshin was bringing up “dehanAsha” earlier and his own quote now dismantles his argument. So much for “reflections”. PP: brahmādiguṇavaiśeṣyādānandādiḥ parasya ca | pratibimbatvamāyāti madhyoccādiviśeṣata || brahmādīnām ca muktānām sukham viṣṇusukhasya tu | pratibimbastu vipluṭko viṣṇoreva param sukham ||

The deities like Brahma, are but reflections of the Supreme Lord Sri Hari. Their bliss is very little compared to the infinite bliss of the Lord." (Note that this not only tells bimba-pratibimbabhāva, but also refutes Ananda sāmya, more about that later.) SD: Here, we can say that the opponent atleast quotes something relevant since the slokas contain the term “Pratibimba”. However, he ignores the context, he ignores the fact that “pratibimba” does not necessarily mean “reflection”, he ignores the literal meaning of the slOkas as well. The translation provided by the author is not complete and neither is it correct. Assuming these two slOkas, occur together consecutively, the context is to delineate the negative characteristics of the bliss in samsAra and then to show that aspiring for the experience of Brahman is the supreme puruShArtha. He should note that those slOkas do not have “pratibimba” in plural, so calling them “reflections” is not the intent here. Although “reflection” is the conventional meaning of the word “pratibimba”, it can be used in another way. Before I explain this, first let me give the pramANas I follow to interpret “pratibimba” in these slOkas. Take a look at this slOka from the rAmAyaNa that uses the image-reflection analogy: rUpa lakshaNa sampaNau madhura svara bhashaNau bimbAt iva uthItau bimbau rAma dehAt tatha aparau (~vAlmiki rAmAyaNa 1.4.11) Meaning: Lava and Kusha have charm in charm in their appearance and melodiousness in their voice, they are like the two reflections of one original object, and thus they came out from the body of Rama, separately. Here, the image-reflection analogy is provided to show the identical characteristics of Lava and Kusha to shrI rAma. In other words, just as the reflections are identical to the image, Lava and Kusha were identical to shrI rAma (being avatArAs of shrI hari themselves, who else would be his and Sita’s sons?). Just as the image is the mUla rUpa for the reflection, shrI rAma is the mUla rUpa for Lava and Kusha. So, the analogy of image-reflection is used to emphasis identical natures of objects. Note that dvaitins accept it to some extent, as they claim that qualities of Hari are proportionately “reflected” in the jIvAs, but that is not the intent of usage here – not just partial or proportional identity, but *complete* identity of nature/qualities is emphasized by the analogy. Not dependence, not incompleteness – COMPLETE IDENTITY. Now, that was one pramANa. Let us take a look at the second: pratibimbakriyAtigAya nama: (~shrI venkatEsha sahasranAma, brahmAnda purANa) Meaning: Salutations to the Lord, whose Pratibimba (image/likeness) cannot be reproduced.

Here is an example in the purANa where “pratibimba” does not mean reflection, but “likeness”. The term emphasizes that there is none like the Lord, so his likeness or image cannot be reproduced. What is the purpose of quoting these 2 pramANas? It proves: 1) If “pratibimba” in the slOkas quoted by the author is taken as “reflection”, it implies complete identity as per pramANa # 1, as Lava and Kusha are completely identical to rAma. This is not acceptable to him. It cannot also be said that complete identity is only in certain qualities as follows- just as the rAmAyaNa slOka references only the qualities of “charm” and “sweet voice” which are the subject matter and not in other qualities like bravery, etc which were not manifested by Lava and Kusha, there is only partial identity between Ananda of others and the Lord’s Ananda. That is rebutted as follows – in the particular subject matter of the rAmAyaNa slOka, there is complete identity and to emphasise that complete identity, the image-reflection analogy is provided. Similarly, the subject matter of the slOkas is everything that is mentioned (devAnanda vs brahmAnanda) and hence, complete identity only can be assumed, which is impossible. 2) If “pratibimba” is taken as “likeness”, as per pramANa # 2, it means there is no talk of “reflections” in the slOkas quoted by the author. This is the route we take. So, 1) proves that pratibimba in the slOkas quoted by the author does not mean “reflection” as it would otherwise imply complete identity. The author has not proven his position of bimba-pratibimba vAda yet, so he cannot say it implies proportional similarity of characteristics. Also, “pratibimba” is in the singular in these slOkAs and thus, as per 2), it is logical to take it as referring to “likeness” or “similarity/resemblance”. Here are the meanings for the slOkAs: brahmādiguṇavaiśeṣyādānandādiḥ parasya ca | pratibimbatvamāyāti madhyoccādiviśeṣata || Meaning: The bliss and powers of Brahma and others, due to their unique/peculiar attributes (of residing in their respective abodes/positions), also attain/become the state or condition of being the likeness/similar form (pratibimbatva) of desire (parasya), ie, anger, due to (association with) the triguNAs (upper, middle, lower). “brahmAdiguNavaisheshyAdAnandAdiH” – The bliss (bhoga) and powers (aishvarya) of jIvAs who are Brahma and other devas, arises from their “guNa-vaiSheshya” – this refers to their unique or specific guNas or dharmas. It means, the dharmas of residing in their respective deva bodies and also in brahmalOka, rudra-lOka, etc which are specific to them and gained due to their merits. These “guNas” constitute the vehicles of enjoyment for them. Just as the term “dharmas” in KatOpanishad 4.14 (yathodakaM durge vR^iShTaM parvateShu vidhAvati …) refers to devAntaryAmitva, manuShyAntaryAmitva etc of paramAtma, similarly “guNa” here refers to abiding of the self in a brahma body, rudra body etc and their respective abodes.

“parasya” – This refers to desire as per the gita slOka. indriyāṇi parāṅyāhur-indrebhyaḥ paraṃ manaḥ | manas-astu parā buddhir-yo buddheḥ paratas-tu saḥ || ~ Gita 3.42 Here, shrI rAmAnuja points out that “parataH” refers to desire and not the Self. The next gIta slOka (3.43) confirms it, so one cannot interpret it as “self” here based on the katOpanishad. Since desire is superior to senses, mind and intellect, it can be termed “paraM” as a noun, in much the same way as the individual self, being superior to prakrti can be termed “paraM”. The idea conveyed by this slOka is that Brahma and others, by virtue of residing in their respective bodies and abodes, earned by their merit (puNya), experience bliss and great powers. But this bliss and these powers are derived from material enjoyment and as such, are temporary. When the enjoyment of material wealth gets exhausted, it results in anger. Anger is the result of desire as it arises from the latter according to the gita slOkas like kAmAt krodho’bhijAyate. Desire leads to experience of sense objects. Anger results from not being able to experience the sense objects when they are exhausted. “pratibimbatvaM” – This means the “condition or state of being pratibimba (of “para” or desire) which is attained (AyAti). The term does not mean reflection. As mentioned earlier, “pratibimba” means “likeness”. It means something that is of like nature or similar in form to desire. It is nothing but anger. While desire generates anger, both are the seed of Rajas or passion, with prakrti being the root cause. Both are enemies of the knowledge of the self, as they hinder it. Thus, they are alike in nature. The term used is “pratibimbatvaM” (not pratibimba), so it means the bliss and powers of samsArIs are becoming or attaining the state or condition of anger, which is the like form of desire. Meaning, once the experience of those bliss and powers are over, there is anger and frustration at not being able to experience them continuously. “madhyOccAdiviSeshata” – Refers to the triguNAs (sattva, rajas, tamas) in samsAra.The idea is that the bliss and powers of Brahma, etc are associated with the triguNAs that constitute their bodies and abodes, and hence are innately limited and temporary in nature, leading to anger upon their exhaustion. Both desire and anger are of like nature arising from prakrti made of the triguNas. The implication is, bliss in samsAra, which is tainted by association with triguNAs, eventually gets exhausted on account of that and thus pleasure changes to pain (anger). So, it highlights the flaws of such samsAric bliss. So, there are no image-reflection theories in this slOka. “parasya” does not even refer to paramAtma here. The teaching is that the bliss in samsAra is temporary and not to be sought after. brahmādīnām ca muktānām sukham viṣṇusukhasya tu | pratibimbastu vipluṭo viṣṇoreva param sukham ||

Meaning: The bliss of deities like Brahma (in samsAra), and those divested of desire to experience material objects and desiring to experience their intrinsic bliss (muktAnAm), is certianly of like nature (pratibimba) to that of vishNu sukha (all being attainable puruShArthas), but is contrary to vishNu’s Ananda/to the essential nature of the jIvAtma (vipluta). The Supreme Bliss is attained from vishNu alone. One must note that the slOkas quoted by the author from varAha purANa with “pratibimba” as above are clearly not elaborating a relationship between jIva and paramAtma. That is clear with the usage of “vipluta” as well. Various meanings of “vipluta” mean “contrary, perishable, lost, immoral” – none of which can be used by the mAdhvas to describe muktAnanda or brahmAnanda. Rather, the intent of the slOkas is to exhort the seeker to reject the pursuit of alpa-Ananda of others and seek the paramAnanda of vishNu. The context of the slOka is this – the Ananda of others is alike in nature to the Ananda of vishNu, as both are clear puruShArthas prescribed by the Vedas to be attained. In the gIta, krishNa says that 4 types of people surrender to him for 4 goals (puruShArtha) – One seeking wealth that is lost (arta), one seeking new wealth (artArtin), one seeking the intrinsic bliss of the individual self (jignyAsu) and finally the one who is the knower of Brahman (jnAni). All 4 purushArthas result in forms of bliss. Though all 4 are different goals, all these goals are valid puruShArthas and in that sense, they are of like nature. But the 3 goals other than seeking Brahman are contrary to the essential nature of the self which is “Seshatva” and also contrary to Brahman who alone is both unlimited and imperishable as a puruShArtha. In the above slOka, “brahmAdinAM” signifies arta-s and arthArthins together in one category as aishvaryArtis and their bliss is material bliss. “muktAnAm” signifies the kaivalyArtis experiencing the bliss of the individual self. Both these are forms of bliss and thus, they are both clubbed as one again to contrast it to the bliss of vishNu. So, discard the former Ananda and seek the Ananda of the Lord. Thus, the context itself shows that “bimba-pratibimba vAda” and Ananda tAratamya is not supported, for the elaboration of alpa Ananda vs brahmAnanda is to encourage pursuit of the latter, which implies the latter is achievable in moksha and thus negates tAratamya. “pratibimba” – In this slOka, the term is again used in a manner analogous to the previous explanation of the term, which in turn denotes the similar nature. Here, the comparison is brahmAnanda, with the Ananda of others. The Ananda of others is of like nature to that of BrahmAnanda, meaning, it is as valid and attainable a puruShArtha as that of brahmAnanda, being sanctioned by the shAstra. “muktAnAM” - Here, this does not mean “muktAs” who are liberated in paramapada. The term “mukta” itself signifies freedom from any particular state or condition and does not always denote those in moksha sthAna based on context. Here, it denotes those who have freed themselves from desires for enjoyment of material objectsby quelling their senses and thus refers to “kaivalyArtis”. These “kaivalyArtis” are those jIvAs, who by their discipline, are divested of desire to experience material enjoyments and who have the desire to experience the intrinsic bliss of the jIva, which is superior to

prakrti anubhava.This is a stage of jnAna yOga, and these people are not yet interested to experience Brahman. We have to take “muktAnAm” in the context of “brahmAdinAm” and the “sukha” experienced. Brahma and others are experiencing the bliss of material attachments. In that context, “muktAnAm” denote those who are freed of this particular quality (ie, desire for experience of material objects) by rigorous indrIya nigraha and thus pursue the intrinsic bliss of the pure self divested of prakrti. Vishishtadvaita recognizes two types of muktAs – the highest muktAs experience paramAtma and attain infinite ananda, whereas the lower muktAs experience their intrinsic bliss which is limited. The sahasranAma alludes to this by saying vishNu is “muktAnAM paramAH gatiH” – He is the highest or most excellent goal of the muktAs, which also implies there is a lower or less excellent goal for muktAs, as otherwise “paramAH” is not needed. An additional pramANa for a lower mukti is seen in the vishNu purANa: yOginAmamritam sthAnam swAtmasantOSha karinAm|| ~ (vishNu purANa 1.6.38) Meaning: That is the eternal world of those yOgins who are satisfied with the bliss of their own selves. That this statement does not – 1) Refer to the highest abode, 2) Does not support the author’s theories of moksha being svarUpAnanda, and 3) that it only refers to kaivalya mukti - is seen by the very next statement of the vishNu purANa: EkAntinah sadA brahmadhyAyinO yOginaScha yE| tESAm tatparam sthAnam yadvai paSyanti sUrayah || ~ (vishNu purANa 1.6.39). This slOka says that for those yOgins who constantly meditate upon the Supreme Brahman alone, considering him alone as the means and the goal (ekAntins), is reserved that Supreme Abode of his where the nityasUris perpetually perceive and enjoy him (as opposed to the yOgis who meditate on their intrinsic bliss in the lower sthAnaM). The usage of “ekAntins” and “sadA brahmadhyAyinO”shows that these yOgins who are constantly meditating on Brahman are different from those yOgins of the previous slOka who are content with the bliss of their own individual selves. If the two slOkAs were talking about the same type of people, there would be no need to add “ekAntinaH sadA brahmadhyAyinO” in the second slOka, or it would have been used in the first slOka. The usage of “tatparaM sthAnaM” (that highest abode) qualified by “sUraya:” (nitya sUrIs perceiving Brahman) differentiates it from the previous “amritaM sthAnaM” which is a lower state of mukti. Of course, it is quite possible that this lower moksha, which is past viraja but not in srI vaikuntha, is still empty, for by the grace of paramAtma, these aspirants are converted to develop a love for vishNu and abandon the pursuit of intrinsic bliss before its’ too late!vishNu loves the jIvAs too much to desert them!

Before a kaivalyArti attains this lower mukti, he first travels to the north and beyond the saptariShis and where dhruva is, to the viShNupada, that radiant region of viShNu, contemplated by yOgins (even kaivalyArtins, though not considering the Lord as the goal, initially need the Lord’s grace and him to be the means to achieve their goal of AtmAnubhava). This is considered the heart-region of the virATpuruSha and viShNu resides here. This is the third celestial abode of viShNu from the earth, below satyalOka. yOgins, who are bereft of worldly passions, meditating on the paramAtma (as a means to attain AtmAnubhava and not in love of him), have shed their merits and demerits (to the necessary level), reach this station, which is superior to svarga in pleasure. They attain mukti (the lower one) if they continue their meditation on the bliss of the jIvAtma and are not diverted to loving contemplation of paramAtma. But by the grace of paramAtma, they do often switch to bhakti yOga, realizing their essential nature of seshatva during the course of AtmAnubhava. That is why some AchAryAs state kaivalya anubhava need not necessarily be mukti. Due to the above, it is quite possible to take “muktAs” as the kaivalyArtiswho have attained this lower kaivalya mukti and are experiencing the intrinsic bliss of their self. But the context suits better the interpretation of taking “muktas” as kaivalyArtis who are still in samsAra, in that viShNupada, engaged in the meditation on the bliss of the individual self, as the purANa slOka is exhorting these devas and muktas to switch to experience of paramAtma by pointing out the alpatva of samsAra ananda and AtmAnubhava. The following gIta slOka validates this as well: catur-vidha bhajante mam janah sukrtino 'rjuna arto jijnasur artharthi jnani ca bharatarsabha (!Gita 7.16) Here, “jignyAsu” refers to those who desire to experience the intrinsic bliss of the self, whereas “jnAni” refers to the seeker of Brahman. It is not correct to interpret “jignyAsu” as “those seeking knowledge of Brahman” and “jnAni” as “those who know Brahman” because both are essentially jnAnIs having the same goal of Brahman and there is redundancy. The statement of “chatur-vidha” is to differentiate 4 types of seekers based on 4 different goals they seek. Thus, “jignyAsu” refers to these kaivalyArtis described above, and in the purANa sloka as “muktAnAm”, ie, freed of desires for material enjoyments. The aksharOpAsaNa of the gita is describing meditation on the essential nature of the jIva only. In contrast to “brahmAdinAm” who are enjoying bliss of material things in the world and attached to the material objects, there is another set of jIvAs who are free of these desires and experience the intrinsic bliss of the jIvAtma. Neither group is interested in experiencing Brahman. So, this establishes the context for interpreting “muktAnAm” as the second set of jIvAs, and comparing the finite bliss of both these sets of jIvAs to the infinite bliss of Brahman, thus showing the latter is the highest purushArtham. To summarize, in this particular slOka, the word “muktAnAm” does not mean any type of mukti is achieved by these people. Rather, it is “mukti” from desire for experience of material objects which allows them to pursue the puruShArtha of the intrinsic bliss of the jIva as opposed to Brahma and others who are still attached to material enjoyments. If you want to take it as true mukti, then that is also possible as it can refer to the state of kaivalya mukti which is lower to the supreme abode of Brahman, but that is not required.

“vipluta” – The experience or pursuit of the bliss of svarga, brahma, etc and the intrinsic bliss of the jIva is contrary to the essential nature of the jIva which is seshatvam. Thus, although they are a pratibimba (likeness in nature) to vishNu’s Ananda in that they are puruShArthas, they are contrary and should not be pursued. The jIva, being by nature a servant of the Lord, is supposed to have no other purShArtha other than to serve the Lord. The jIva’swill should be aligned to the Lord’s will. His Ananda should arise from experience of the Lord’s qualities after serving him. He is an absolute slave, a property of the Lord and should have no independent desires. Thus, one should not indulge in activities against this essential nature such as independent pursuit of other bliss, not even to experience his own blissful nature, and such independent desires as per shAstra, is equivalent to “theft of the Atma”, since the AtmA, being a body and thus subservient to the Lord, is a property of the Lord. Alternatively, “vipluta” means the Ananda of others is contrary to the Ananda of the Lord. Both material bliss and the intrinsic bliss of the self are limited in nature. The material bliss is perishable as well. Whereas the bliss of the Lord which is experienced by muktAs and nityAs is both imperishable and unlimited. It can be taken in this manner too. The phrase “visNoreva parama sukhaM” actually means that vishNu provides the highest bliss to be experienced. This refutes the objections that Brahman is not experienced in moksha and reteirates the bliss to be sought after and experienced are the auspicious attributes of vishNu himself. One should not aspire to experience one’s intrinsic bliss or other material enjoyments in samsAra such as that of Brahma, etc, but seek to experience the svarUpa-rUpa-guNa-vibhUtis of the Lord by serving him. The kaivalyArtis meditate on the amalatva, Anandatva and jnAnatva (jnAnasvarUpa and jnAnAshrayatva) of the jIva, with the understanding that the jIva is jnAnAnandamaya, but do not understand its’ nature is seshatva-jnAna, as the sharIrAtma bhAva between jIva and paramAtma is not meditated upon. They do meditate on paramAtma initially, as a means to secure their end, just as an aishvaryArthi meditates on the Lord as a means for gaining wealth, but does not consider the Lord as his goal. But there is no loving contemplation which is bhakti yOga and an understanding of the sesha-seshi bhAva. In contrast, liberated ones in paramapada meditate on their seshatva and experience Brahman. “intrinsic bliss” is certainly included in the Ananda of a mukta in paramapada as he is an experience of all Anandas. The mukta understands it is seshatva-jnAna in nature; thus his experience of this bliss is by understanding his seshatva and he also experiences the blissful kalyANa guNAs of Brahman by serving him. But for a kaivalyArti, the seshatvaM is not meditated on and thus, experience of such bliss is against the nature of the Atma. The realization process of yoga is: 1) Realise Atma is distinct from body (karma yOga), 2) realise Atma is jnAnAndamaya (jnAna yOga), 3) Realise sharIrAtma bhAva between jIva-Brahman and that jnAna svarUpa of Atma is seshatva jnAna (bhakti yOga). KaivalyArtIs arrive at stage 2) but get trapped in the intrinsic bliss of the Atma before proceeding to stage 3). Additionally, for further understanding of the concept of “kaivalya moksha”, one can refer books on the subject. It is too big to elaborate here. This much will do.

Thus, neither of these slOkAs endorse image-reflection theories. Even were you to interpret “pratibimba” as reflection, then going by the Lava-Kusha-Rama pramANa, you have to profess complete identity and not proportional identity. For that matter, anger is completely identical to desire in its’ nature too. But no need for semantics. “Pratibimba” simply means “likeness”or “similar nature/resemblance” here. Why stop here? There is another “pramANa” provided by the dvaitins which the opponent has not quoted here, as evidence for Bimba-Pratibimba theory. Let us address that as well. This is from the Hiranyagarbha Sukta of the Rg Veda. The statement “yasya chAyAmrtaM yasya mRityum” in the sUkta is interpreted as “The devas are reflections (chAyA) of Brahma (Hiranyagarbha)” by the Dvaitins. The above can also be refuted here. Firstly, “Hiranyagarbha” refers to the Supreme Lord and not Brahma. Secondly, “chAyA” means shadow in that verse. “amrta” refers to the individual self which is immortal and not the race of devas. The entire meaning is, Yasya chAyAmrtaM yasya mRtyum - “Whose (form of) shadow/death (chAyA) is the jIva (amRta) and whose (nature) is being death to the samsAra of his devotees (mRtyum)” “chAyA” is interpreted as shadow. It refers to death according to the bAlaki brAhmaNa in the brihadArANyaka, for a shadow is black and frightening, and thus is represented as death. Here, “death” means “the form of death”, and the jIva (amRta) is said to be the “form of death” for Brahman. Meaning, as Brahman has the cEtana as his body, it is his form. And since the embodied self is subject to death in samsAra, it is meant that the form of Brahman which is subject to death or transmigration is the jIva, which has Brahman as its’ innerself. But the question arises, is Brahman then subject to death on account of his body (cEtana) being subject to death? No, as evidenced by “yasya mRtyum” – His nature is that of being the death (mRtyu) for the deaths of his devotees, ie, he puts an end to samsAra. In other words, his nature is of being the means to liberation. Since the essential nature of Brahman is seshitvaM or ownership, that implies that it is of the nature of being the means (upAya) for all the jIvAs who are seshas by nature and his property. He is the means to liberation, and after attaining liberation, he is the means to gain eternal service. It is impossible to stipulate a tAratamya in the essential nature of the jIvAs, or a Bimba-Pratibimba relationship. For we have the pramANAs: Ya Atmani tishttan Atmana: antarO yam AtmA na vEda yasya AtmA sharIram ya AtmAnam antarO yamayati sa ta AtmA antaryAmi amruta:" ~ antaryAmi brahmaNa, BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad. Just as a body is controlled, sustained by, dependent on and servile to the self, similarly the jIva is controlled, sustained by, dependent on and subservient to paramAtma. This means that the essential nature of all jIvas are identical as they are all his bodies and they all have that nature of seshatva as illustrated by a shAstra vAkya quoted by AchAryAs: nAyam dEva na martyO vA na tiryak sthAvarOpi vA /

j~nAnAnandamayastvAtmA shEShO hi paramAtmanah//” ~ (MahAbhArata, AshvamEdhika 43-13) The self is neither god nor man, neither beast nor tree. Its essential nature is knowledge and bliss and it is entirely dependent on the Supreme Being and exists solely for his purposes (shESha). The above sloka is an explanation of what “sharIratva” implies, ie, “sharIratva” culminates in “seshatva” as the essential nature. The usage of “self” in singular implies the entire class of jIvAs are identical in nature, in so much as “rice” can refer to several identical grains of rice. In such a scenario, BimbaPratibimba vAda is inapplicable. Other pramANas for the essential nature of the self being “seshatva” are as follows: svatvamAtmaNi saMjna jAthama svAtmitvaM paramAtmani stithaM (~ Attributed to viShNu tattvam) Meaning: The soul’s nature is to be property, Brahman’s nature is to be the owner. AtmadAsyaM harEsca svAmyaM svabhAvajnasca sadA smara ~ (Attributed to viShNu tattvam) Always remember the soul’s servitude and hari’s inherent ownership. dAsabhUta svatassarvE hyAtmanAH paramAtmanaH nAnyathA lakShaNaM tEshAM banthE mokshEsi tathaiva ca (~ Attributed to Harita Smriti) Meaning: All souls are by nature servants to paramAtman. No other definition (lakShaNa) applies to them in bondage as well as mOkSha The above pramANas are quoted by srI manavAla mAmunigal in his vyAkhyANa for “mumukkshupadi” and by srI vedAnta desikan in “srimad rahasya traya sAram”. As all souls are the body of Brahman, all have identical nature of “seshatva”. Hence, there is no “svarUpa bhEda” to warrant any sort of tAratamya in essential natures. At this juncture, the opponent may argue – why can’t we take “yasya AtmA sharIraM“ as a metaphor rather than saying paramAtma actually has jIvAs and jagat literally as “sharIrAs”? The answer is: 1) Even if taken as a metaphor, it will mean paramAtma controls the jIva like a body (sharIra), which means that the jIva, like a body, is subservient to, dependent on, controlled by and exists because of paramAtma. This in turn means, like a body, the jIva is a sesha by nature to paramAtma. Thus, all jIvAs are identical in svarUpa and it yields the same meaning! 2) “SharIra” is to be taken as literal as it talks of sarvAntaryAmitvaM. Subala Upanishad also states that the Lord has everything as his body, and justifies the Lord as “apahatapApma” in relation to being “sarvabhUtAntarAtma”. The shruti thus takes pains to show the Lord is unaffected by being the “sharIrin” due to being devoid of karma and on account of having

everything as “sharIra”, he is “sarvabhUtAntarAtma”, and the purpose behind such a declaration is only because he is literally associated with everything as his body. 3) Thirdly, sharIrAtma bhAva is prescribed for meditation in upAsaNa, is reteirated in smriti by usage of “tanu”, “vapu”, “rUpa” and other words (these pramANAs will be quoted later), and hence is literal. shrI vedAnta desikan says that it is not necessary for bhagavAn to literally dwell in the Atma to control it like a sharIra. But since shAstra is explicit in his literal pervasion and inner controllership, it is to be taken as literal. Compare the above points with mistaken quotations of the mere usage of “pratibimba”. It is not rocket science to see that sharIrAtma bhAva is fully supported by shruti. But we do not deny completely that image-reflection analogies are used in shAstra. For example, consider this Upanishad vAkya quoted by shrI vedAnta desikan: Eka eva hi bhUtAtmA bhUtE bhUtE vyavasthitaH ekadhA bahudhA chaiva dRshyatE jalachandravat Here, it says the Lord who is the antaryAmin of all beings, though being one, is seen as many in the same way as many reflections of the one moon in water. How do we explain this? Simple. shrI rAmAnuja infers that this analogy is explained as follows – Just as the moon, despite being seen in many water bodies of unequal sizes, is not affected by the differences in size, shape etc of the water, in the same manner, Brahman dwells in all sentient and insentient entities as the antaryAmin and is not affected by their doShAs and differences such as increase or decrease, sentience or non-sentience and so on. Thus, the analogy serves to explain he is “akhilahEyapratyanika” and “samastha kalyANaguNAtmaka” everywhere, being “avikAra”. The Self of all beings, though one, abides in each separate being and is seen as many, like the moon reflected in different sheets of water. To this, a pUrvapakSha can be raised – The moon does not really abide in water. What is seen is its’ reflection. So, imperfections of the water do not attach themselves to the moon because it is not really there in water. In contrast, Brahman really abides in all beings and thus there is no parallelism in the analogy. To this pUrvapakSha, shrI rAmAnuja replies – The purpose of the analogy and comparison is only to show Brahman does not participate in the imperfections of the beings in which it abides as the indweller. So, it means that “Just as the moon is not touched by the imperfections of the water as it does not really abide in the water and thus there is no reason for sharing the water’s imperfections, similarly Brahman, who really abides in all sentients and insentients, is not affected by their imperfections, as the nature of Brahman is essentially antagonistic to all imperfections and thus there is no reason for sharing the imperfections of the others”. Hence, comparisons and analogies should not be stretched beyond their logical context. Normally, two things are compared for the reason that although they do not have all attributes in common, they have some attribute in common. For example: “Man is like a Lion” – here, the comparison does not mean that man walks on all fours like a lion.

So, the analogy of the image-reflection is to convey that Brahman is not affected by the impurities and inequalities of the beings it abides in, just as the moon, which is seen in different water bodies of uneven sizes, is not affected by such differences in the water bodies. PP: In the following Brahmasūtra, the bimba pratibimbabhāva only is indicated. "OM ābhāsa eva ca OM" - Brahmasūtra - 2-3-50 SD: Vishishtadvaitins interpret that sutra differently. The previous sUtra to this, according to srI rAmAnuja, establishes that the individual selves are inseparably associated with Brahman, are distinct from each other and of identical natures. Therefore, theories such as Brahman being deluded by limiting adjuncts etc. cannot explain how there is no mixing or co-experiencing in case of the experiences of the individual selves and the highest selves. However, the pUrvapakSin may then ask, “The fact that the experiences of different selves and Brahman do not get mixed up is due to the differences in the upAdhis (limiting adjuncts) caused by avidyA. To that, the next sUtra replies – AbhAsa eva ca – And (ca), it is only (eva) a fallacious argument (AbhAsa). We need not go into further details, but the word “AbhAsA” means “fallacious”, not “reflection”. If we take “AbhAsA” in plural, it means that the various justifications of the pUrvapakSins are all fallacious. PP: On the other hand, there are no scriptural statements that say that Lord has jīva as the body or the universe as the body and there are scriptural statements that contradict the Lord literally having a body different from him. Thus trying to treat the Lord as "śarīri" by using statements quoted before will go against many scriptural statements and also turns out to be illogical. SD: It is very strange the author says this despite his tradition boasting a commentary of the Upanishads. Both the BrihadAraNyaka and Subala Upanishads quoted declare this tattva in no uncertain terms. To dispel the thought of it even being a metaphor, the Subala Upanishad openly states that the Lord is apahatapApma despite being sharIrin and sarvabhUtAntarAtma because of the sharIrAtma bhAva. There are no scriptural statements saying the Lord’s body is identical with him. This only means that stray statements in the varAha purANa have to be interpreted based on the above understanding. ON THE TOPIC OF JIVA BHEDA PP: The Viśiṣṭādvaitins themselves would not like to equate themselves with the jīva of their preacher Sri Rāmānuja. Much less would they like to equate the jīva of kalipuruṣa or any other despicable jīva with that of Sri Rāmānuja. They are forced to accept jīva-jīva bheda. SD: We accept jIva bhEda in so much as each jIvAtma is individually distinct. However, we say that all have identical svarUpa of seshatva. The jnAna svarUpa of jIvAtma is nothing but seshatva jnAna.

Differences between jIvAs are due to expansions and contractions of DBJ which in turn is a result of karmas. Of course, in moksha, the jIva serves Brahman and his preceptors, who are the reason why he has attained moksha. Even if our jnAna and Ananda is equal to our preceptors, they are the ones who helped us reach moksha and thus they remain higher in status for eternity. Hence, thereis no equality with shrI rAmAnuja in status, don’t worry. PP: Gita Slokas 16.5-6, 17.2-3, etc bring out differences in jIvAs. SD: Those statements certainly refer to differences on account of being in samsAra. JivAs have sattvika, rAjasika and tAmasika characteristics due to different contractions of DBJ in association with karmavAsaNa-ruchi. Those slokas do not talk of svarUpa bhEda. “svabhAvaja” is misinterpreted by dvaitins as “inherent nature”when it refers to ruchi. This is explained later on in this document. PP: OM adṛṣṭāniyamāt OM - Brahmasūtra - 2-3-51 If a doubt arises that since all the jīvas are pratibimbas of the Lord, they all must resemble one another and must be the same, this sūtra answers that doubt saying that the difference is due to difference in their inherent svabhāva, samskāras and the consequent anādi karma, which are ādṛṣṭa. SD: The Bimba-Pratibimba vAda has already been dispelled with. The meaning for this sUtra is also different. The previous sutra “AbhAsa eva ca” determined that all arguments in favor of Brahman limited by adjuncts are fallacious. SrI rAmAnuja then adds, “the pUrvapakSin could then state the difference in experiences is due to the beginningless “adRhtAs” which are the cause of the “upAdhi-s”. To that, the reply is, AdRStAniyamAt – The adRshtAs which are the causes of upAdhi-s have for their substrate Brahman, they are connected to Brahman itself and cannot split up Brahman, which remains as one. And so on. We need not go on, but it is clear that Vishishtadvaita does not recognize those sUtrAs talking about Bimba-Pratibimba vAda or jIva bhEda. PP: Mādhvās clearly point out these well established facts from the scriptures. In simplest terms, one can go thru Gīta and see them for themselves. Some of these Gita verses are pointed below (quotes several gita verses). SD: trividha jIvA bhEda is due to differences in DBJ. It is not due to svarUpa and does not persist in moksha. All the gita slOkas pertain to samsAra bhEda. PP: Please note that eternal hell is not "permanent stay in saMsāra". If those two are the same, then our saMsāra must be termed as "short term super-hell".

SD: Eternal hell indeed is a permanent stay in samsAra due to perennially contracted DBJ. BhagavAn himself says in the Gita that he casts the jIvAs into the lowest species, upon which they never attain him. And yes, our stay is a short term super hell indeed, if we remain as bhaktas that is! Hells like Raurava, etc are in samsAra only, are they not? PP: (Quotes several pramANams showing jIvAs reach hells) COMMENT: In fact the last three chapters of the Gita, the daivasura sampat vibhaga yoga, the shraddha traya vibhaga and the moxa sannyasa chapters clinch the issue of the jiva traividhya and by extension jiva jiva bheda for the informed reader SD: The informed reader will also note that all those chapters talk about baddha jIvAs with no indication that these differences persist eternally. Only in samsAra, as long as the DBJ is contracted and different for different jIvAs. The usage of svabhAvaja” refers to ruchi and not svarUpa bhEda. This is explained in a later section. Type “svabhAvaja” or “ruchi” as keywords if you want to skip to it in this document. PP: If one likes to see the enormous difference between the glorious interpretation given by Achārya Madhva and other Achāryas for the Gīta verse 9,32, here it goes. When others gave with the apparent meaning, which is not only ridiculous, but brings down the stature of the women of our tradition, the true purport is brought out by our Achārya. SD: The so-called “glorious” interpretation by srI mAdhva is wrong as there is no intrinsic bhEda sanctioned by the shAstra in the first place. This is a minor non-impactful difference, but even so, mAdhva’s interpretation is wrong. The Gita indeed classes women along with other pApis, because those who do not have vedAdhikAra, are under some karmas which prevent them. This is prayaksha. In that sense, it is to be accepted women do have that inferiority. However, it does not exclude them from moksha sAdhana through prapatti and thus even srI rAmAnuja declares “equality of women”, if you wish to look at it from a social context. ShrI madhva’s comments in this context: “The inherent nature, be it manhood, or womanhood, or Brāhmaṇatva or Kṣatriyatva, etc as per their inherent nature are retained in the liberated state, having fulfilled all prārabdha." …are wrong. Because, there is no gender bhEda among jIvAs. Such differences are due to differences in DBJ. The jIvAs are all like identical diamonds with varying degrees of dirt hiding their luster. Some shine a lot, some shine less. But in moksha, that dust is completely cleansed to an equal measure for all, and hence, they are all identical. Only seshatvaM is their nature and as per the vAkya “nAyam dEva na martyO vA na tiryak”, the self in its essential nature has no gender, caste or other forms of discrimination. In any case, shAstras should never be interpreted from a social angle. Be it varNAshrama or otherwise.

PP: The ślokas dont have any Bhaktiyoga and Prapatti and Sri Rāmānuja also did not make any effort to use those words in the commentary of these verses. So, trying to drag what is not in the verses and also not in the commentary of their Achārya is uncalled for. Sri Madhvācārya averted the disaster of demeaning and degrading the entire group. SD: Gita being the essence of the Upanishads, everything bhagavAn says is related to – 1) Knowledge of his nature, 2) Knowledge of the jIva’s nature, 3) Knowledge of the Supreme Goal, 4) Knowledge of the means to the goal, 5) Knowledge of the obstacles to the goal. Thus, every sloka is relevant to bhakti yOga and prapatti, which constitute the two different upAyAs practiced as means to the goal according to the following pramANa: "bhaktyA paramayA vA-pi prapattyA vA mahAmathe prApyoham na anyathA prApyO mama kainkarya lipsubhihi"(~Ahirbudhnya Samhita, pAncharAtra Agama) mAdhvachArya’s distinctions between “inherent natures” are a-pramANika. Read the tAtparya Chandrika of srI vedAnta desikan before commenting on what terms srI rAmAnuja used and what he did not. ON THE NATURE OF LORD BEING DIFFERENT FROM HIS ATTRIBUTES PP: It is scriptures, which differ from Viśiṣṭādvaitins. ānandam brahmaṇo vidvān, "atha eṣa eva parama ānandaḥ" "ekamevādvitīyam" "neha nānāsti kincana" There is no difference between Lord and His attributes. There is no difference between Lord and His avayavas(or limbs). SD: Brahman is jnAnAndamaya svarUpa and also has jnAna and ananda as attributes. This is evidenced by the fact that shruti states “Anandam brahmaNo vidvAn” – Brahman is of the nature of Ananda, but also states “sa ekO brahmaNa Ananda:” – This is one unit of the Ananda of Brahman, thus saying Ananda is an attribute of Brahman. None of those shruti vAkyAs declare a non-difference between the Lord and his attributes or limbs. What a nonsensical interpretation. Let us study these mantras in detail to understand theie real context as well as meaning: sadeva somyedamagra AsIdekamevAdvitIyam.h | (~ Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1) Meaning: Beautiful one! All this Universe of diverse names and forms was prior to creation only one Sath, the ever existent Reality, Paramatma and Non-Second. The context of this mantra is to describe the causal Brahman. The term “Sath” here refers to the Supreme Brahman qualified by sentient and non-sentient entities which are his body. The term “only

one” (ekamEva) refers to Brahman being the material cause of the Universe. “Non-Second” or “AdvitIyaM” means there was no other instrumental cause, ie, Brahman is that as well. “IdaM” means this Universe differentiated into names and forms in the gross state. Since everything is his body, creation involves transformation in the sense that Brahman who had the sentients and insentients in the subtle state as his body, now has the sentients and insentients in the gross states as his body (after creation). Thus, there is material causality in the sense of this change in state. However, he remains “avikAra” as he is “apahatapApma” and distinct from his body. So, in this way, Vishishtadvaita establishes the material causality of Brahman without causing any changes to be attributed to him, and without resorting to tenous arguments of advaita, and without trying to dodge it by claiming “Lord is not different from his limbs” like Dvaita. Nothing remotely close to “Lord is non-different from his attributes/limbs” here. manasaivAnudraShTavyaMmanasA eva Aptavyam anudraShTavyam neha nAnA.asti kiM chana | na iha nAnA asti kim chana mR^ityoH sa mR^ityumApnoti mR^ityos sa mR^ityum Apnoti ya iha nAneva pashyati yas iha nAnA iva pashyati || (~BrihadArANyaka Upanishad 4.4.19) Meaning: This Brahman must be realized by the mind alone after steady and constant meditation. In Brahman that is to be realized, there is no duality or diversity. He who sees here, as though it were many, goes from death to death. The previous mantra (4.4.18) to this referred to Brahman as the innerself of the panchajanasor sense organs and ether. This mantra thus describes how to meditate on this Brahman. So, one needs to understand this particular context before rashly giving interpretations like “He is non-different from his limbs” “manasaiva dRshyatE” – This relationship of Brahman (as the innerself of panchajanas and ether) is to be realized by pure meditation of the form of vivid perception achieved by the mind. “anu” signifies that this meditation should be preceeded by shravana and manana. If it is doubted that the one Brahman cannot be the support of the panchajanas as well the elemental ether, it is pointed out that there is no diversity in Brahman that is to be realized. The idea is that, Brahman as the innerself of the panchajanas is the same as the Brahman as the innerself of ether, and he does not undergo changes or become diverse on account of antaryAmitvaM. In such a way, there is no bhEda in the Atman. If one sees diversity in Brahman which is the ground of the entire Universe (in the manner of thinking Brahman as innerself of different entities undergoes increases or reductions), then he attains samsAra only. Similar mantrasalso occur in the katOpanishad, so let us see that as well: taM devAH sarve.arpitAstadu nAtyeti kashchana . etadvai tat ..yadeveha tadamutra yadamutra tadanviha mR^ityoH sa mR^ityumApnoti ya iha nAneva pashyati (~KatOpanishad 4.10)

Meaning: What indeed is here (as the inner self in the self) is the same which is yonder (as the self of all the other worlds). That which is yonder is here. He who sees here (in the Supreme) as if there is any difference goes from death to death. The simple meaning of this is, what is experienced as “I”, ie, (the Lord who is the inner self of the self which is his body), is the same as the innerself of all the other worlds. He undergoes no differences, increases or decreases on account of his sarvAntaryAmitvaM in diverse entities. manasaivedamAptavyaM neha nAnA.asti ki.nchana .mR^ityoH sa mR^ityuM gachChati ya iha nAneva pashyati (~KatOpanishad 4.11) Meaning: This is to be attained by the mind alone. There is no difference whatsoever here (in the paramAtmAn). From death to death goes he who sees here (in the paramAtmAn) as if there is any difference. This mantra says that the paramAtma is grasped bythe mind alone and reteirates that he is the same everywhere, despite being the innerself of diverse entities. Hence, these statements do not deny a difference between the Lord and his body. Their context itself indicates that. His body is made of suddha sattva, it is insentient, inseparably associated with him. PP: There are many scriptural statements as indicated above. Please take a look at the Brahmasutras in Parānandādhikaraṇa, Sthānaviśeṣādhikaraṇa and ahikuṇḍalādhikaraṇa (which will be explained a bit later). All of them completely refute the Viśiṣṭādvaita position in Anandasāmya. The Lord's niravayavatva is accepted by even Advaitins. There is no other way out. SD: Since the author has not elaborated on these adhikaraNas, it befits one to say that Vishishtadvaitins have also sufficiently commentated on those sections and safe to say, there is no contradiction. Indeed, if the few sUtras which the author quoted to “prove” Bimba-Pratibimba vAda are any proof, it is clear that these statements of his do not carry much weight either. The “niravayatva” of Brahman is fully accepted by us as well. PP: The jīva can be amśa of the Lord just like the the spark of the fire. It only means jīva resembles the amśa, but in reality it is not amśa as it is impossible to be an amśa of "niravayava" Lord – Lord can not be split into parts. "Because jīva is controlled by Brahman, it is called as amśa, but in reality it is not an amśa". SD: The author quotes the argument of advaitins here. Very well. In Vishishtadvaita, “amsha-amshI” bhAva refers to the inseparability of the jIvAtma which is the body of paramAtma. This inseparability is one of the many outcomes of sharIrAtma bhAva (the others being dependency, seshatva, etc as seen earlier). Even if you say, the jIvA is called amSha because it is controlled by Brahman, any entity that is controlled by, dependent on, inseparable to and exists solely because of another entity is a sharIraM of that another entity. Not to mention the shAstra explicitly declares it to be so.

It is very funny that the author would struggle to accept that jIvAs are literal “amShas” of Brahman because of them being his inseparable attributes by virtue of sharIrAtma bhAva, because the proof for such an interpretation comes from his own tradition. shrI mAdhva, who is ever meticulous with his quoting of texts, references a passage from the vishNu rahasya describing the jIva as follows: EvaM puNyasya pApasya dashAMshAn jIva shaktitaH prApnOti jIvaH tEnaiva pURNOyaM bhavati dhruvam alpashaktEH tatOlpaM tu puNyaM pApaM cha jAyatE (~ viShNu rahasya, quoted by shrI mAdhva) We don’t need the meaning of this, as its’ not relevant. Just note that this slOka has “dashAMshAn jIva” mentioned here. Do you know why? “dashaM” refers to the indrIyas or the body which is constituted by the 10 indrIyas (5 karmEndrIyas and 5 jnAnEndrIyas). This body (or the indrIyAs) is termed the “amSha” of the jIva, on account of it being an inseparable attribute of the jIva so long as the association lasts. Thus, shrI mAdhva’s quoted slOka declares that the body or indrIyAs is an “amSha(s)” of the jIva on account of inseparability. So, makes sense, doesn’t it, when shAstrAs declare “yasya Atma sharIraM” (the Atma is a body of Brahman) and shrI krishNa says “the jIvAs are my amShAs”, it only means that the jIvAsare the body of Brahman,his inseparable attributes and cannot exist without this inseparable association. Your guru’s own pramANa proves that your interpretation of “amSha” is wrong and that the Vishishtadvaitic interpretation is correct. Maybe not entirely wrong, as controllership and dependence is an outcome of the amSha-amShi bhAva, but let us say, your interpretation is incomplete. “Brahman cannot be split into parts” only refers to the fact that his divyAtma svarUpa cannot be divided into organs, head, tail, etc and that it is not thin somewhere and thick elsewhere, etc. It is jnAnAnandamaya svarUpa, characterized by the same auspicious attributes (satyava, jnAnantva, anantatva, Anandatva and amalatva which are svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas) everywhere. The body of Brahman is not Brahman, so jIvAs can be his amShas without any violation of shAstra, since it is by association of 2 distinct entities (body and self). “niravayatva” does not mean “nirguNatva”. Here is the lucid explanation below. There are two types of statements. Some say “There is no diversity in Brahman” - One needs to understand such statements mean Brahman, who is jnAnAndamaya svarUpa and full of auspicious attributes, does not undergo diminishments, augmentations, etc by his pervasion in different entities like stone, human, etc. In other words, Brahman becoming antaryAmin of different beings does not divide him, split him, resize him, reshape him or diminish/augment him, that’s all. The second type of statementssay “Brahman is without parts, limbless, neither thin nor thick, etc.” Referring to this statement, the opponent says “Brahman is niravaya hence you are wrong in saying he is different from his body” - he is wrong.It only means the essential nature of Brahman is indeed described as partless, limbless, etc. But all these statements actually reject the idea that his essential nature is identical with his body. “niravayatva” refers to the divyAtma svarUpa (essential nature of

Brahman) which cannot be divided into head, limbs, is neither thin or thick, etc. This divyAtma svarUpa, as mentioned earlier, is jnAnAnandamaya and characterized by satyatva etc everywhere. The body of Brahman is not identical to Brahman and thus does not fall under the category of entities denied “niravayatva”. The idea is, Brahman, whose essential nature is “niravaya”, assumes a divine body for the sake of his devotees, but that body is not verily the Brahman, who is “niravaya”. Secondly, by saying Brahman is identical to his body, essentially you are saying his svarUpa can be divided into head, limbs, etc. No amount of “viSesa” or seeing “head as non-different to limbs” can overcome the pure fact that essentially, you are dividing the svarUpa of Brahman by speaking of it as head, limbs, etc. Head is of a different proportion to limbs and thus it imparts thickness, thinness, etc to brahma-svarUpa which is against shAstras. shAstrasdo describe the divyAtma svarUpa (essential nature) of Brahman thus as “niravaya” and then raise the following question - in the SUtra 1.2.30 belonging to VaiSvAnara-adhikaraNa, it is questioned as to how the vaiSvAnara Brahman is represented as having svarga as his head, with limbs, altar as the chest, etc thus giving a finite description of the unlimited? Similarly, in sutra 3.3.12, it is questioned as to how (the essential nature of) Brahman can have bliss for its’ head, etc. To which, the answer is that it is only for the purpose of meditation. The essential nature of Brahman is indeed unlimited, but this is only a figurative representation for ease of upAsaNa. The divyAtma svarUpa really cannot have head, wings, etc as such organs may be thin or thick, which in turn would violate passages describing Brahman has no increase or decrease, is not thin or thick, etc. The divine body of Brahman (his suddha sattva form), the jIvAs who are “amShas” of Brahman due to inseparable association of Brahman (self) and jIvAs (body), etcare not Brahman and thus do not fall under the category of entities denied“niravayatva”, the term being applied to Brahman (essential nature characterized by attributes) alone. The divyAtma svarUpa (essential nature) indeed cannot be divided into head, hands, feet, etc.The idea is that, wherever the svarUpa of Brahman is, it is always the same jnAnAnandamaya characterized by satyatva, etc. It is in this sense that he is partless, has no limbs, no head, etc. ON THE NATURE OF ARCHA AVATARA (THE FORM IN TEMPLES) PP: The Viśiṣṭādvaita believes in partial avatāra of the Lord by going against the śruti pramāṇa "pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidam pūrṇātpurṇamudacyate | pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate ||" SD: That mantra only talks about the para, vyUha, vibhava, antaryAmin and archa (form in temples) avatArAs of the Lord. All those forms are pUrNam, so there are 5 pUrNams in the mantra if you count properly. We do not say there are any “partial avatArAs”. The archa avatAra is pUrNam. “AvEsha avatArAs” are also pUrNam and are a type of vibhava avatAras like vyAsa, arjuna, brahma, rudra, etc where the Lord

who is pUrNam enters the jIvAs and performs extraordinary acts. The Lord in them is pUrNam, but the jIvAs are not the Lord. English translation makes it sound like “partial avatArAs” which is wrong, The archa avatara is listed among the 5 types of avatArAs – 1) para, 2) vyUha, 3) vibhava, 4) antaryAmin, 5) archa – in the pAncarAtra vishvaksena samhita. Lord describes the archa form in that section. (Lord says): Mama prakArah panceti prAhuh Vedanta pAragAh Paro vyUhasca vibhavO niyantA sarvadehinAM ArchavatArasca tathA dayAluH purushAkritiH (~ vishvaksEna Samhita) Vibhava are of two types: mukhya avatArAs like rAma, krishNa, etc where the Lord appeared directly and gowna avatArAs like the AvEShas in jIvAs like vyAsa, arjuna, etc. Note that the AvEshas are also purNam forms of the Lord, but the jIvAs they act through (Arjuna, vyAsa, etc) are not the Lord. Note also that someAgama samhitAs often club antaryAmin and archa into vibhava and say there are 3 avatAras only – there is thus no contradiction between those statements and these ones. Om pUrNamidam pUrNamadah pUrNAth pUrNa mudachyathe| pUrNamevAvas’ishyathe||

pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya

Meaning: ParavAsudeva is complete. The antaryAmin is also complete like him. The vyUha that arises from the complete paravAsudeva is also complete and manifests as Aniruddha, etc. From the complete vyUha, the complete vibhava arises and is taken as the locus for the complete archa avatAra which stands as the sole shelter for the devoted. adah pUrNam - This paravAsudeva mUrthy is complete with svarUpa-rUpa-guNa-vibhUtis (complete in all respects). idam pUrNam - This inner controlling form (the antaryAmin referred to as pratirUpa in the katOpanishad) also is complete like above. pUrNAthpUrNam udachyatE – The vyuha mUrthy has arisen from this complete paravAsudeva mUrthy (pUrNAth) is also completein all respects and manifests as SankarshaNa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha mUrthys (pUrNaM udachyathe) pUrNasya pUrNam AdAya - From such complete vyUha mUrthy, the complete vibhava mUrthy that has arisen (pUrNasya pUrNam) is taken as the locus for (AdAya) pUrNameva avas’ishyathe - The complete archA mUrthy alone that stands as the sole shelter for the devoted. That mantra refers to para, vyUha, vibhava, antaryAmin and archa which are the 5 “pUrNa rupAs”. Archa is considered to arise from vibhava because it is identical to vibhava in functions and manner, being among us.

The archa form is the sole shelter for the devoted as he is visible even to the lowest of intellects by his mercy. It is truly a form that showcases that he is an ocean of compassion. Furthermore, it is the only form that allows his devotees to treat him as they please. More pramANAs for archa avatAra are given later on in the document. I’d suggest using the keyword “Paro vyUhasca vibhavO” to search for them if anyone wants to skip directly to it. AvEsha avatArAs are those in which Lord enters a jIva and performs acts through them. Calling them “partial” is a misnomer due to a lack of corresponding word in english – in reality, the Lord exists in fullness even in AvEshas. But he does not become the jIvAs, he merely acts through them or enables them with a fraction of his power such as Arjuna’s archery prowess. The Agama also says that AvEshas (in the Vishishtadvaitic parlance) exist as follows, quoting the Lord from the Vishvaksena Samhita of the pAncarAtra Agama (referenced in “tattva trayaM” of pillai lOkAchArya) anukAlaM mumukShUNAmanupAsyA visheShataH | anarchyAnapi vakShyAmi prAdurbhAvAn yathAkramam || chaturmukhastu bhagavAn sRRiShTikArye niyojitaH| sha~NkarAkhyo mahAn rudraH saMhAre viniyojitaH||mohanArthe tathA buddhaH vyAsashchaiva mahAnRRiShiH| vedAnAM vyasane tatra devena viniyojitaH||arjuno dhanvinAM shreShTho jAmadagnyo mahAnRRiShiH|vasUnAM pAvakashchApi vitteshashcha tathaiva cha ||yadyadvibhUtimatsarvaM shrImadUrjitameva vA| tattadevAvagachCha tvaM mama tejo.aMshasambhavam|| yadyadvibhUtimatsarvaM shriyA juShTaM visheShataH| rAgadveShavihInaM tu svato balavadulbaNam || tattadaMshaM vijAnIyAt mama kAryArthamAdarAt | evamAdyAstu senesha ! prAdurbhAvairadhiShThitAH || jIvAtmAnassarva ete nopAsyAste mumukShubhiH| AviShTamAtrAste sarve kAryArthamamitadyute|| anarchyAH sarva evaite viruddhatvAnmahAmune | ahaMkRRitiyutAshchaite jIvamishrA hyadhiShThitAH||prAdurbhAvAstu mukhyA ye madaMshatvAdvisheShataH|ajahatsvasvabhAvA hi divyAH prAkRRitavigrahAH||dItAddIpa ivotpannA jagato rakShaNAya te|archyA eva hi senesha saMsRRityuttaraNAya vai|| (~vishvaksena samhita, quoted by srI pillai lOkAchArya) As the Lord said to the attentive Vishvakesena;— “Those who have been entrusted with some cosmic authority should not be worshipped by those desirous of Liberation. I shall specifically mention those partial manifestations (pradurbhavan). The four-faced Brahma was entrusted with the work of projecting the universe into being (srishthi) and the great God Shankara with the work of withdrawal of the universe (samhara). The function of Buddha was to delude and Vyasa was appointed to compile the Vedas. Arjuna was the greatest of archers and Parasurama (Jamadagni) of powerful beings. Agni is the foremost of the Vasus and Vittesha (Kubera) [of the Eight directional lords]. 38 – 39. O Senesha! Whoever is possessed of sovereignty and harmony, prosperity and is agreeable, and devoid of attachment and hatred and of itself influential and exceptionally endowed [for good], is to be known as a portion of Myself, manifested for the purpose of fulfilling My objectives. All of them are governed by Divine decree, they are individual jivas and should not be worshipped by those desirous of Liberation. They are merely entered into O Limitlessly glorious one! By my self on purpose and they are all unworthy of worship because they indeed partake of the nature of jivas and are possessed of

egotism.Those manifestations who, on account of being largely parts of My spirit are important, who have not given up their own true essence and who are Divine and have non-material bodies, who have arisen like one light from another for the protection of the world; those O Sensesha, are indeed worthy of worship in order to cross the ocean of samsara.” (~vishvaksEna samhita, pAncharAtra Agama) Translation is rough, but it will do. Note that vyAsa, parashurAma and Buddha are included with Brahma, Rudra, Arjuna, etc and the Lord clarifies that they are jIvAs. In this respect, the AgamAs recognize “AvESha" is the ability of bhagavAn to express himself through a jIvAtma to carry out certain tasks. There are 2 types of AvESha as described in the AgamAs ShaktyAvESha in which bhagavAn bestows certain powers on a jIvAtma (parashurAma, kArtavIryarjuna, brahma, rudra, the pAndava arjuna etc). Here, the entry is that of bhagavad guNa (a power) and not bhagavad svarUpa. As bhagavAn remains complete and the power only belongs to him, one cannot say this makes bhagavAn “partial”. But the jIva is not verily the paramAtma. The degree of shaktyAvEsha may vary - ie, parashurAma has a higher degree of vishNu shakti than brahma, rudra etc and hence is counted among the dasavatArAs due to his actions. svarUpAvESha in which bhagavAn himself, by svarUpa, "enters" into a jIvA - a sort of "possession" if you will (but in a good way, not exorcist like!) vedavyAsa and balarAma are the major examples -- and balarAma exhibiting greater potency is counted in the dasavatAra. Again, paramAtma remains complete, but the jIvAs are not him. “vyAsAya vishNu rUpAya vyAsa rUpAya vishnavE” - My repeated salutations to vyAsa who is a form of vishNu and to vishNu who is the nature (AvEsha) of vyAsa (as the AvEsha)- Clearly, “rUpa” mentioned 2 times have different meanings. vyAsa is a jIva who is the body of the Lord, hence his form. Or it can be said, in this AvEsha avatAra, vyAsa is his rUpa. The Lord, being the AvEsha dwelling in vyAsa, is thus his nature (rUpa), ie, the Lord dwelling in vyAsa is performing these acts. The second “rUpa” means nature. Regarding vyAsa, the agamas appear to classify veda vyAsa as a shaktyAvEsha, but there are distinct pramAnAs in texts like the sahasranAma sloka (vyAsAya vishNu rUpAya:) and the vishNu purANa which describe him as svarUpAvESha. This could be due to yuga bheda with veda vyAsa being ShaktyAvESha in one yuga and svarUpAvESha in another yuga, a logical explanation. Or perhaps there is a reconciliation I am not aware of myself. Anyway, it is an inconsequential issue. PP: (Argues that the form of the Lord in temples is made of prakrti and not suddha sattva as follows) 1) There was no sannidhāna of the Lord already and the muslims could break them. 2. There was sannidhāna of the Lord, but before the act of muslims, the Lord took out the sannidhāna and allowed the muslims to cause the destruction.

Do they think that the icon was "śuddha sattva" from the beginning (meaning the stone was made of śuddha sattva and the icon was made from śuddha sattva or it becomes śuddha sattva at the time of "pratiṣṭha"? In either case, they face the following difficulty. If they think that the icon is not avatāra, but just "śuddha sattva", even then, how can the muslims or other vandals have the capacity to destroy "śuddha sattva"? We must not get mixed up between sannidhāna and avatāra and śuddha sattva. SD: These arguments fail to understand the glorious nature of the Lord. “Suddha Sattva” is another form of prakrti which is pure sattva. It is subject to transformation, but remains pure. When the deity is consecrated with mantras, the Lord transforms the ordinary prakrti of the body into suddha sattva. Depending on the extent our DBJ has contracted or expanded, devotees get a vision of that divine form. With extended DBJ due to their upAsaNa, yOgIs can see the full splendorof archa avatAra in which the Lord’s body glows (being of the body of suddha sattva) etc, whereas normal people like us have moderate blissful experiences. Even his para, vyUha and vibhava forms are made of suddha sattva. In archa, he effects a transformation once consecrated, so that the body in archa form is equal to the other forms. As this avatAra is mentioned along with para, vyUha, vibhava and antaryAmin in the pAncharAtra, it is not a mere “sannidhAna” but an avatAra equal to the others. More pramANAs will be provided later below. Even if his form got broken when muslims attacked us, it is only his incredible leela. The purpose of the archa avatAra is summarized by Pillai Lokacharya as follows – it is a role play by the Lord to reverse positions. Quoting our acharya below: “This is the greatest grace of the Lord, that being free He becomes(voluntarily) bound, being independent He becomes (voluntarily) dependent for all his service on the devotee… In other forms, the jIva belonged to him. But behold the supreme sacrifice of Ishvara in the form of the murti, for here the Supreme Being (voluntarily) becomes the property of the devotee. He carries the Lord about, fans him, feeds him, plays with him-yes, the Infinite has become (as if) finite, (so) that the self may grasp, understand, and love him.” Thus, out of his own will and grace, and not due to karma, the Lord imposes certain restrictions on himself in this avatAra. Even if broken, it is by his own supreme will and he is unaffected. It is an imitation of the “death of the jIvAs” in a way, all done out of play. If re-consecrated, he appears again. It is also pertinent to note that though muslim invasions, etc have affected many temples, many of these temples in the north which were destroyed did not involve proper Agamic consecration requisite for an archa avatAra. The foremost of temples where the Lord has been properly consecrated such as Srirangam, Tirupati, Badrinath, etc remain untouched, which perhaps is his divine sankalpa. The Padma Purana is quoted by Manavala Mamunigal in Sri Vachana Bhushanam, where it is said that those who regard the Lord in temples as made of wood, stone, etc are committing a great sin.

(PramANas are provided for archa avatAra much later below. Please search using keywords like “archa” if you want to see them now ). PP: Sri Vyāsatīrtharu successfully refuted in his work Candrika a few positions taken by Viśiṣṭādvaita. They attempted criticisms of that work. Sri Vijayīndratīrtha wrote a work called "Sarva-siddhāntasārāsāra-vivecanam In Sarva-siddhānta-sārāsāra-vivecanam-1, Sri Vijayīndratīrtharu refutes the criticisms of Viśiṣṭādvaita. Sri Tatacharya also known as Sri Parakāla yati wrote a work "Vijayīndra Parājaya" attempting a refutation. However those criticisms have already been effectively anticipated and addressed by Sri Vijayīndratīrtha in his Sarva-siddhānta-sārāsāra-vivecanam-1 itself. SD: Merely writing works against Vishishtadvaita does not refute Vishishtadvaita. As proven at the beginning of the article, the author, like his gurus (Vyasatirtha, Vijayendra Tirtha and Raghavendra Swami), did not even have a good grasp of Vishishtadvaita in the first place. One-upmanship is of no use if the argument is “My work came last, so it means you are defeated”. Judging by the previous blabber on “dehanAsha” and all that, your gurus had their work cut out but didn’t measure up to the task. Hence the talk of expertly “anticipating” criticisms by Vijayendra Tirtha doesn’t wash. Improper understanding of pUrvapakSha means they refuted ghost philosophies rather than Vishishtadvaita. ON THE CONCEPT OF SUBSTANCE AND ATTRIBUTES PP: In case of cetana, everything that is inherent of cetana is nondifferent from cetana as that cetana is "acchedya(Note the Gīta verse)". In case of jaḍa, the attributes are of two kinds "yāvaddravyabhāvi"(lasts as long as the object lasts) and "ayāvaddravyabhāvi"(does not last as long as the object lats). In case of "yāvaddravyabhāvi", there is non-difference. In case of "ayāvaddravyabhāvi", there is both difference and nondifference - difference in one aspect and nondifference in another. In case of such attributes, those attributes may have been lost either naturally or through manual intervention. More later. SD: Such a highly convoluted understanding is unnecessary. The very fact that some attributes are seen to last as long as the object lasts and some do not last as long as the object lasts is only because of extraneous factors like the environment, etc. The fact that some attributes disappear and others remain is not some inherent nature of theirs, but due to external forces that are at work. The very fact that an attribute can have a separate existence from substance, and the attribute is *inseparable* to a substance at the time of union, illustrates that the attributeis different from thesubstance. An attribute, by nature, is one that is inseparable from a substance. Inseparability itself implies a difference between the two, since a single entity cannot logically be inseparable from itself. Thus, an absolute difference is to be maintained. At this juncture, a clarification is needed. The term “dravya” is understood to be a substance whereas “guNa” is attribute and these are held as mutually exclusive. This is erroneous. A dravya can also be a guNa of another dravya. Let us look at the definitions then:

Dravya – That which is a substratum for change. Adravya – That which is the change guNa – Attribute guNi – Substance So, a dravya can be the guNa of another dravya. But an adravya can never be a “guNi”. As an example, take the Ocean. It is the substratum (dravya) of the waves, so it is a substance (guNi). At the same time, the wave which is an attribute (guNa) of the ocean, is also a substance (guNi), because it is the substratum (dravya) of “wave height” which is an attribute (guNa) and also that which changes (adravya). This is an important point to comprehend; otherwise one can never claim to be writing a rebuttal on Vishishtadvaita. An attribute is different to and inseparably associated with a substance. cEtana is only mentioned as “acchedya” in Gita 2.24 in the context of it being indestructible. It cannot be cleft (acchedya), burned (adAhyaH) or dissolved (aklEdyaH), etc. How is this even relevant to the discussion, and how is the self being indestructible imply that attributes are identical to the substance? Ludicrous. “Qualities last as long as the object lasts” – says the author. This is not exactly true. Rather, rephrase it thus – “The qualities that are inseparably associated with the object (and hence different) remain in such a relationship as long as the conditions for inseparability remain”. Thus, a blue pot is no longer blue when it is painted red. Blue is seen in other objects; it has a separate existence from the pot. Being inseparable to the pot, it is different. Certain conditions determine how long the inseparability and hence the association lasts. Regarding the cEtana now – when we say “AtmA”, we mean the entity with svarUpa and its essential attribute of DBJ. The DBJ is an essential attribute of the AtmA in that it is a svarUpa nirUpaka dharma and hence included in the definition of the term. The idea is that a cEtana can know/perceive and hence necessarily possesses DBJ. This DBJ is inseparably associated with the svarUpa, has a distinct function as compared to svarUpa jnAna, is an attribute and is hence different to svarUpa jnAna. Since there are no “extraneous conditions” that can ever cause a “vikAra” in the sentience of an entity and since all sentient entities must have the essential attribute of DBJ, this DBJ is always inseparably associated with the jIva svarUpa and hence lasts as long as the Atma exists. Though there is no vikAra in Atma svarUpa, the shAstra does not deny vikAra for the attributes of the cEtana. Thus, Vishishtadvaita only accepts that jIva svarUpa is “avikAra”, not its’ attributes. For the DBJ of the cEtana comes into contact with vAsaNas and ruchi and contracts or expands based on karmas. Since jIvAs are identical in svarUpa (seshatva), jIva bhEda necessarily has to come from the changes happening to the attributes of the jIva, and that alone explains the effect karma has on the behaviors of the jIvAs.

It is only Brahman that is “avikAra” in both svarUpa and DBJ – he is “akhilahEya pratyanika samastha kalyANa guNAtmaka”, “apahatapApma”, etc everywhere. neha nAnAsti kincana emphasises that he undergoes no changes despite his antaryAmitvam in diverse entities, and even if prakrti that is his body undergoes “nAsha” he remains unaffected. PP: (In the case of a blue jug and blueness) When the colors are present, can the color alone be separated from the object. Surely, one can destroy the colors, but not give a separate existence to those colors of those objects, as and when they are in the inherent nature of the object. SD: Why assume color is “in the inherent nature of an object”? The blue color also exists in the sky, on a blue chair, etc. There is no difference between blues of different objects, so it is one same attribute existing inseparably with different substances.By “separate existence”, it is meant that it can exist independently of one object and in association with another. As this blue color exists separately in other objects, this is nothing but separate existence from the jug as well. Since it can be removed from the jug, it shows blueness is an attribute that is inseparable to the jug under specific conditions and exists inseparable as long as these conditions exist. If these conditions are removed, then the blueness is no longer associated with the jug. It is thus an attribute, completely different from the substance which is the jug on account of inseparability. PP: One agrees that jarness cannot be separated from jar. Banana-ness cannot be separated from Banana and mango-ness can not be separated from mango just as cow-ness cannot be separated from cow. SD: The first major flaw in the above argument is that inseparability does not imply “non-difference” as it is only two distinct and entirely different entities that can exist in an inseparable relationship. To say inseparability implies non-difference is a logical absurdity as one entity cannot be inseparable with itself. The second major flaw is that the author does not know thatwhen we say “jar-ness” is inseparable from a “jar”, it does not mean “Jar-ness” = “Jar”. It means that “jar-ness” (collection of defining attributes)is inseparable to the substance of a “jar” characterized by all its’ attributes. It does not preclude the existence of other attributes like “brittle”, etc. Though a substance may have other attributes besides the ones constituting “jar-ness”, it is called a jar on account of “jar-ness” attributes distinguishing it from other substances. Even when it is said, “jar has the attributes of jar-ness”, it only means “the substance of the jar is characterized by the attributes of jar-ness”. And this inseparability only lasts as long as conditions for inseparability exist. Explanation below: The author fails to notice that terms like “cow”, “mango”, “jar” signify the substance, characterizedby its’ associated attributes (svarUpa nirupaka dharmas) that constitute “cow-ness”, “mango-ness”, “jarness” as well as not precluding other attributes which are nirUpita-svarUpa-viSesaNas. Take a cow. This refers to the substance characterized by “cow-ness”, which includes attributes such as giving milk, having an udder, etc which are svarUpa-nirUpaka dharmas. Although terms likeblack, white, thin, etc., do apply to the substance of the cow when it has those attributes, these attributes do not

distinguish it from another entity such as a horse. Therefore, the substance is called a “cow” on account of being characterized definitively and inseparably by those attributes of “cow-ness” that distinguish it from other entities. A substance is called by a name to distinguish it from other substances on account of unique attributes. When the attributes constituting “cow-ness” (such as giving milk, etc) are separated (by loss of the cow body), the substance is no longer called a cow. The purpose of calling a cow by that name is to differentiate it from other objects, due to association with attributes of “cow-ness”. These are svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas. The attributes of black, thin, etc which are known after understanding it is a cow are nirUpita-svarUpa-viSeSaNas, as these cannot distinguish the cow from the horse. Thus, take a jar for example, if a jar is made of china, it means that it is a modification of china, ie, the material china has been molded with some attributes such as shape, functionality, etc that is then identified as a jar due to these attributes. The substance of the jar, ie, china, could also have attributes like “brittle”, etc., but it is specifically called a “jar” when associated with the attributes such as shape, functionality, etc that consititute the “jar-ness” and to distinguish it from other objects. So, a “jar” consists of the substance that is china, the attributes such as brittleness etc which areassociated with china(nirUpita-svarUpa-viSeSaNas) and the defining attributes (svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas) which arethe result of modification of china, such as aperture for storing water, shape, functionality etc (jarness). The substance characterized by its’ attributes of “jar-ness” is the “jar”, whereas ONLY the attributes of “having a hole to contain water”, etc are the “jar-ness” or defining attributes (svarUpa nirUpaka dharma) that distinguish the substance from other objects such as a china doll, for instance and hence referred to as “jar-ness”, as they are the specific attributes that impart the name “jar” to thissubstance by their association. Names only exist to distinguish objects. Both a china jar and a china doll are brittle, so they cannot be called “brittle”. But the substance associated with attributes constituting “jar-ness” is called a jar to distinguish it from the china doll, though it doesn’t preclude the presence of other attributes like brittleness. In other words, “jar” is a term that is applied to a substance qualified by the attributes collectively referred to as “jar-ness” and they are different. As the substance (ie, china) and attributes (having a handle, etc) are inseparably associated, they are different. Although both the substance of the handle and the substance of the jar ischina (for instance), there is a difference in functions and hence, they are different (note that handle, which is an attribute of the jar, is a dravya as well and another modification of china). Inseparability itself implies a difference. In addition, the inseparability of “jar-ness” (defining attributes that are associated with the substance of a jar) with the substance of the jar, is not eternal, but only subject to external conditions. Tools can be used to remove the handle of a jar, so handleless jars can exist.Handles by themselves are also modifications of the substance (china in this case) and can also exist associated as attributes of other objects, like a vase or a bucket. Thus, “having a handle” is an attribute, inseparable to the jar so long as

favorable conditions for inseparability exists. A jar, if crushed into an unrecognizable mess, is no longer a jar, but merely a lump of china as the attributes constituting the “jar-ness” no longer exist inseparably associated with the substance to give it the name of“jar” and distinguish it as such. The substance still exists, the attributes of “jar-ness” are no longer associated with it, so it is no longer called a jar. Thus, it is nonsensical to say “jar-ness cannot ever be separated from the jar and thisimplies nondifference”when the term “jar” itself means the substanceof the jar qualified by the inseparable attributes (jar-ness)that are different to the former on account of inseparabilityand this inseparability lasts as long as favorable conditions last. Ditto for mango and banana. Similarly, the term “Brahman” signifies both vishNu’s svarUpa, as well as his attributes (Brahman-ness if you will) which are inseparably associated with his nature. That is why we can say “Brahman’s svarUpa” because the term “Brahman” does not only indicate the svarUpa of an entity, but the sum of svarUpa and attributes. Only, unlike the jar, Brahman cannot undergo changes. PP: One tends to say "thread is not same as the cloth. They are different". Then take away all the threads, the cloth is also gone. Suppose one says they are the same. Then put just a pile of threads one doesn't call it a cloth. There is kāryakāraṇabheda(one is a product produced from other), but not "vastutaḥ bheda". This is the case for jaḍas. The total aggregate of the attributes makes up the object. Each attribute is an amśa of the object and is inseparable from that. SD: We say “thread is not the cloth” in the sense that “a mere thread doesn’t become a cloth, it is much more”. Because thread and cloth are both different modifications of the same material (let’s say silk) in the same way as a gold chain which is made by linking several gold rings, and an individual gold ring, despite being modifications of the same substance gold (having the same nature), are different on account of attributes such as connectivity, functionality, etc. The term “cloth” signifies the substance (silk) characterized by the attributes that constitute “clothness”. The cloth is made of threads connected together, so the term “cloth-ness” denotes the attributes of connectivity between an aggregate of threads in a specific manner and a specific functionality (wearing, wiping, etc) as opposed to a mere aggregate of threads which lack these attributes (which is why a bunch of threads cannot be called “cloth”). Assuming that the cloth is made of silk, it means that the material silk, has undergone modification into threads held together in a specific manner for a specific functionality. So, the “cloth” is silk substance characterized by the defining attributes that constitute the “cloth-ness”, ie, connectivity of threads, specific size and shape, functionality, etc. The substance of the cloth can also be called “silky” on account of texture, etc but since these do not differentiate it from a thread which also has the same attribute of texture etc, it is called “cloth” on being associated with the defining attributes that constitute “cloth-ness”. Texture, etc are nirupitasvarUpa-viSeShanas. In contrast, a thread is a different modification of the same material (silk) with different size, functionality, etc.“Cloth is not thread” in the sense that what differentiates a silk cloth and silk thread are the attributes of connectivity, functionality, etc. But we do say “thread when connected together

with other threads in a specific manner for a specific purpose is a cloth”. So, when silk is qualified by the attribute of connectivity of threads in a specific manner for a specific function, it is called cloth. The key attributes to transforming a thread into cloth is connectivity of several threads in a specific manner and other unique functional properties, and that is why a bunch of threads lacking theseattribute(s) cannot be termed a cloth. Thus, “cloth-ness” refers to these defining attributes whereas “cloth” refers to the substance (silk) characterizedby attributes of “cloth-ness”, so it is perfectly logical to say “cloth-ness” is inseparable to and different from the substance of a cloth and exists inseparably as long as conditions for such inseparability exists. By removing the threads, the cloth undergoes a transformation into a collection of threads. This only means the key defining attributes of “cloth-ness” such as connectivity in a specific manner, etc have been removed, but the substance that is silk remains, characterized now by qualities that distinguish each entity as “thread”, as opposed to “cloth”. PP: Suppose a jar had a handle. The handle was part of the jar. The handle is not different from jar and at the same time the handle is not same as the jar. The handle is part of the jar and at the same time the handle is different from the jar. It only depends on how one looks at it. Suppose the handle broke. Still one calls the jar "a jar" (It is just that it does not have a handle any more). SD: Why this confusion? You say the handle is part of the jar, not different from the jar, not the same as the jar. Mangled logic. Both handle and jar are substances with the handle existing as an attribute inseparably associated with the jar as long as conditions last. Like the example of gold ring and gold chain, both handle and jar are modifications of the material china, ie, they have the substance china characterized by attributes defined as “handle-ness” and “jar-ness” (for handle and jar respectively). A substance can exist as an attribute of another substance, so a handle exists as an attribute of a jar. The handle is inseparable to, and thus different from a jar, since inseparability indicates difference and the functionality of the two substances are different. Despite being identical substances (china), handle and jar are different sincetheyare characterized by different svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmAs (defining attributes) of “handle-ness” and “jar-ness” that distinguish them- handle is used to hold things, whereas the jar is used to store water, etc. The handle can be seen in other objects as well, like bucket, vase, etc and thus it also has an existence outside of the jar. The two do have common attributes like the qualities of brittleness, which are nirUpita-svarUpaviSeSaNas and so cannot be denoted as “brittle” as it doesn’t distinguish them The dravya “handle” is included inthe term “jar” which denotes the substance of the jar, qualified by its’ attributesof retaining water, etc (jar-ness)that give it the name of “jar” and the nirUpita svarUpa viSeSaNas (of which handle is one such attribute). Even without the handle, the jar is called a jar because it retains the attributes like having an aperture for retaining water etc which are other defining attributes that makethe substance qualified by them be

called a jar. Hence, the “jar” term refers to the substance characterized by “jar-ness” attributes inseparably associated with (and hence different) from the substance. PP: The color never flows into the object. It is either integral part or external (like one wraps an object with a color paper, then one can remove the paper so the color is gone, but there it is not integral part of the object.) SD: The color can exist as an inseparable attribute of the object based on extraneous conditions and at other times, it won’t exist inseparably associated with the particular object when the conditions are not there. So it can come into an object and go. PP: If it (color) is the quality, how can it come in. The quality is inherent for an object. SD: The author simply assumes a quality is inherent when that is the debate in question. quality is not inherent, but only inseparably associated with the object as long as conditions exist for such association. Please refer the definitions for dravya, a-dravya, guNa and guNi listed earlier. PP: If the quality is external to the object and some X1 brings an association between the quality and the object, then they needs another entity (say X2) that brings association between the object and X1. Then they need another X3 that brings association between X2 and the object. Thus they will end up in infinite regress. They are forced to accept viśeṣa to extricate themselves from infinite regress. SD: Not clear whether the author is questioning the nature of the relationship between substance and attribute, or what causes the relationship. So I will answer both. If the question is, “what is the relation between a substance and attribute and should we bring in another relation ad infinitum to explain the relationship”, then this infinite regress is avoided by saying that the very nature of substance and attribute is to exist inseparably. Such “inseparability” itself indicates an association/difference between the two, and there is no need to bring in another entity leading to infinite regress. Basically, things like “another entity that explains the relationship needs to be brought in” are dismissed as superfluous on account of the fact that the “relata”, namely the substance and attribute, themselves account for their inseparable existence. It also does not mean the attribute is inherent to substance or vice versa as the author thinks, but merely means that any substance-attribute relationship of inseparability is by their nature when they exist in that relationship. A substance is always existing inseparably with some attribute if not another and an attribute is always existing inseparably with some substance if not another at any given time, thus it is a relationship by nature and requires no external entities to explain it. Resorting to this weak argument does the author no favors to his position as this is the most basic of objections which was dispelled by Vishishtadvaita AchAryAs quickly before even beginning to elaborate the concepts. If the question is, “What causes the association between substance and attribute, and should we bring in another cause ad infinitum, to explain the relation between the first cause and the substance-

attribute association”, then it is not even a vedAntic objection, but an objection to the theory of causeeffect that has been put forward by chArvAkAs. I wonder if the author is actually a vedAntin, for I am sure his gurus certainly didn’t raise this objection! In any case, shrI vedAnta desikan refutes this by stating that it cannot be said that the existence of a number of conditions or operations (as revealed by experience) in bringing about an effect (substance-attribute association in this case) leads to infinite regress, for only those conditions or operations which are revealed in experience are accepted as having happened. For example, in the case of a pot becoming associated with blue color, we have specific conditions like the desire of the potter to paint the pot blue, the tools required for this and so on. These comprise the cause of the association between blue color and pot. As pratyaksha reveals only specific conditions, these are alone accepted. Once the association happens, the relationship between blue and pot is simply that of attribute and substance whose inseparability is by their nature. I think the author is making up his own objections rather than consulting vedAntic works, for there is no way a vedAntin would raise the second objection. PP: How can there be union of the quality and substance when they are inseparable. It is mistake after mistake. SD: Incorrect understanding. It is clearly stated that inseparability happens at the time of union (ie, after union) based on external conditions. PP: That is identity - difference between substance and qualities cannot be made. They do not last the same, one cannot make jug out of blueness alone- that is the difference. SD: There is only difference and no “identity-difference”. Blueness is an attribute that is different and inseparable to the jug at the time of union. Nobody says blueness is the determining attribute (svarUpanirUpaka-dharma) of the jug anyway. PP: So, mādhvas say that there is both difference and identity. They also prove and demonstrate. But, then Viśiṣṭādvaitins, intending to attack mādhvas charge out and say that it is wrong and without even their own realization conclude exactly the same "upon their own observation" SD: See above. mAdhvas are wrong. The only logical conclusion is “different and inseparable”. Difference cum identity contradicts even pratyaksha. Vishishtadvaitins are very clear on their position. When someone does not understand basic concepts and claims “dehanAsha” argument is a major “refutation” of Vishishtadvaita, then I suppose he can make up theories claiming Vishishtadvaitins realize the same things as mAdhvas. PP: The individual qualities of a jug not only helps to know about that jug, but also helps to differentiate from another (say) identical jug, which may have 'same color, same weight, same texture, same shape, etc.'. Both jugs may be blue, but we do not say that blueness of one jug is nondifferent from blueness of another jug. Each one is its viśeṣa.

SD: Blueness of one jug is indeed the same as the blueness of another jug. What makes it different? It is the same attribute of color existing in association with different substances and hence is different to the substances. The author’s argument assumes blueness of one jug is different from blueness of another jug based on their distorted theory of blueness being non-different to the jug. Difference in shades of blue of course is a different matter, and are to be counted as different colors. Dark Blue is of course, not the same color as Light Blue. The individual qualities of the jug which help to differentiate it from other entities like doll, constitute the “jug-ness” that are associated with the substance. As mentioned earlier, these constitute the svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas and the substance is termed “jug” on account of them distinguishing it from other objects. After that, the qualities such as “blue” etc which are known after the defining attributes are known are called nirUpita-svarUpa-vISeSaNas. Having understood the difference between jug and doll, the difference between one identical jug and another can be understood by differences in the nirUpita-svarUpa-viSeSaNas like “blue jug” and “red jug”. But if both jugs are identical in all respects, then there is difference in terms of individuality and as distinct objects only. The very fact that same attributes like blueness exist in different substances shows that the attribute is different to a substance and has an existence outside of that substance. Just because the attributes help differentiate objects does not mean they are inherent to the object. Rather, it means the two objects are identical in nature, but are associated with certain attributes that are inseparable to them, that are different from each other under specific circumstances.Note that the term “object” or “jug” itself includes both substance and attributes characterizingthe substance as explained earlier. The blueness of one jug can be seen to exist in another jug, implying blueness is an inseparable (and hence different) attribute of the jug. PP: Let [Q1] be the set of all the qualities of jug J1 and [Q2] be the set of all the qualities of jug J2. Even though the jugs J1 and J2 look identical, [Q1], which is inseparable from J1 helps you to differentiate J1 from J2. Similarly [Q2], which is inseparable from J2 helps you to differentiate J2 from J1 SD: So the author admits “inseparability”. Anything that is inseparable to something is different from it, as one entity cannot be inseparable from itself. Hence proved. And the mAdhvAs are simply delineating the concept of “svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas” here in a haphazard manner. Attributes inseparably associated with a substance of an object, that help to distinguish the object from other objects are defining attributes. PP: (After some minor arguments)The biggest blunder they are committing is not even differentiating the jaḍa and cetana in this analysis, which is one of the main reasons for their untold miseries and

troubles. They face the apasiddhānta endlessly by presuming that Brahman and His guṇa-s are different. SD: Let us not get too dramatic. It is not even clear what the author is talking about, as we maintain a clear difference between jaDa and cEtana. It is dvaita which declares the Lord (cEtana) is non-different from his body (which is jaDa) actually! There is no “apasiddhAntha”. Stop using flashy Sanskrit words to hide your own incompetence of a “refutation”. There is not a single pramANa showing Brahman is identical with his guNa-s. The term “Brahman” is nothing but the sum total of the nature of the entity characterized its’ attributes, which are inseparably associated with it and different. Brahma-svarUpa is jnAnAnandamaya. “Brahman” does not simply refer to mere svarUpa. The various attributes of Brahman are different states of its’ DBJ. PP: (After some rants about daharAkAsa) - If Brahman and His qualities are different, here in daharaākāśa, what is the seeker seeking - the Lord or His qualities? If He is sought, then the qualities lose significance. If His qualities are sought, He loses His significance. If both are sought, that has to be mentioned explicitly. But there is nothing of that sort. SD: The statement is – “seek what is in that Akasa” – what is in, meaning, those auspicious attributes that are inseparably associated with Brahman. The attributes are inseparable and hence different. However, by saying “seek the attributes”, it is only a glorification of the auspicious attributes. In places, the shAstra glorifies the attributes even over the divyAtma svarUpa of Brahman. But this does not result in any dOsha because the glorification of the attributes only culminate in a glorification of the svarUpa. I believe this is what the person whom the author was trying to refute, was referring to, having read the author quoting him. These attributes reflect the glory of the svarUpa and hence there is no doSha in saying Brahman and its’ attributes are different. An analogy can be given to explain this. A sun and its radiance are different. Though both sun (jvAla) and radiance (prabha) have the essential nature of brightness (tejas), the sun (jvAla) reveals/illumines itself, whereas radiance (prabha) illumines other objects. As they clearly have different functions in this manner and are also inseparably associated as substance-attribute, they are different to each other.But the greatness of prabha (attribute) depends on the greatness of the jvAla (svarUpa). Prabha can be seen elsewhere as well, say in a fire, but when associated inseparably with sun, it is greater. It cannot be said “prabha” associated with fire is different from “prabha” associated with sun, since both are the same attribute with the nature of tejas as well as the same functions,and are dravyas capable of change in degree of illumination. So, the grander the substance (sun as opposed to fire), the grander the attribute (prabha) becomeswhen associated with the substance. Similarly, the auspicious attributes of Brahman are unique to all others on account of being inseparably associated with brahma-svarUpa. The shAstras profusely praise the attributes over the svarUpa for this reason. If the attributes are great, it is because they are associated with a great svarUpa.

Another example. The shAstras say the names of the Lord lead to liberation. However, we know that chanting these names leads one to develop a love of the Lord, practice bhakti yOga or prapatti, experience his auspicious attributes and then attain moksha by the grace of the Lord. Thus, by saying “names of the Lord lead to moksha”, it is a praise of the Lord who is inseparably associated with the attributes denoted by his names. PP: Further look at this self-contradiction in one breath and one sentence - "the gunAs are inseparable from Him and constitute His essential nature" They talk of inseparability of guṇa-s along with the assumption that they are different and also claim that they constitute His essential nature. If they are different, then they do not constitute His essential nature. One can easily see the self-contradiction. Since this is such a messy position, one can see how they have to wriggle, jiggle, and struggle to get out of this mess. SD: The opponent is understandably gleeful about a contradiction, but it seems the person he was quoting has little knowledge of the subject and did not phrase it well. The idea, as understood by all, is “The essential nature of Brahman is characterized by these attributes which are inseparable to him at all times, all places and all states”. Unlike blue pot which can lose its’ blue color by certain external forces, there are no external factors that can cause changes in Brahman, so inseparability is eternal. We do differentiate between “essential” and “non-essential” attributes though. For instance, the term “Atma” indicates both the svarUpa as well as DBJ, but may or may not include the sharIra associated with the Atma (depending on how one chooses to use the term, it can also be used to indicate that the AtmA is qualified by a sharIra). Thus, DBJ is an essential attribute required to define “AtmA” whereas sharIra is a non-essential attribute which need not necessarily be included in the term “AtmA”. But both are inseparably associated with and hence different from the Atma svarUpa. PP: To start with, assuming that the Lord's guṇa-s are different from the Lord is abhyupagama vāda. After assuming that, one will pose the question - are they separable from Him or not? They are separable from Him leads to a ridiculous position. And so they conclude that they are inseparable from Him. But the issue is the first step itself. How can one conclude that the Lord's guṇa-s are different from the Lord? It is against scriptures and against logic SD: The guNas are inseparable and different. This is concluded by the very fact that they are called “guNas” in shAstra – the nature of an attribute (guNa) is to be inseparable from a substance, and inseparability implies difference since one entity cannot be inseparable with itself. Shruti nowehere equates attributes with substance. The guNas of Brahman cannot be separated because unlike a blue pot which can be manipulated by external forces, Brahman is independent and eternally unchanging. He has manifested these attributes out of his own volition, as different states of his DBJ. Attrbutes of grace, mercy etc are seen in other people. But these are like the radiance (attributes) of a fire in comparison to these same attributes in Brahman which are like the resplendent radiance (attributes) of the sun. Brahman also has several auspicious attributes not seen in anyone else, of

course. The term “devadeva” is interpreted by srI rAmAnuja as – “One who possesses all the auspicious attributes of the devas, and also has innumerable other attributes they do not have”. Pratyaksha itself is clear – Anything that is inseparably associated with another, is different. “Inseparability” itself denotes difference, and not difference-cum-identity. PP: Scriptures mention Brahman is bliss and Brahman's bliss - both such usages can be there. But both are the same. There is no difference between the two- like the coil of the snake and snake-coil. SD: Ananda is both his nature and an attribute. Brahman is jnAnAndamaya svarUpa, but also has satyaM, jnAnaM, anantaM, AnandaM and amalatvaM as his attributes. As jnAna is both his nature (svarUpa jnAna) and attribute (DBJ), Ananda is also both his nature and attribute, for where there is jnAna, there is Ananda. The ahikundala adhikaraNa does not imply the coil of the snake is non-different from snake. Here is the explanation to put this illogical assumption to bed once and for all. The topic of the adhikaraNa is not to discuss viSeSa. Rather, the previous adhikaraNa proved that Brahman had the 2 fold designation of being free of all blemishes and full of auspicious attributes. At the same time, the Universe is said to be the “form of Brahman” in the texts. So, this adhikaraNa investigates the relationship between Brahman and the Universe, and how best it can be described in a manner to not violate the fact that Brahman is free of all blemishes. For this purpose, bhagavAn bAdarAyaNa takes up, in 3 successive sUtrAs, 2 cases corresponding to 2 distinct darShanas – abhEda and bhEdAbhEda– which are pUrvapakShas - and establishes the siddhAntha as that of bhEda school in the final sUtra. Thus, the texts which state that the Universe is the form of Brahman are explained by the 3 schools as follows: 1) The abhEda school avers that just as the coil is nothing but the snake in a different form or arrangement as compared to the uncoiled snake, Brahman appears as the Universe in a different form or arrangement. A “coil” is basically the snake characterized by an arrangement or form.In other words, the Universe is regarded as a special form (samsthAna viSeSa) of Brahman, just as the coil is a special form of the serpent. There is identity as it is basically the same snake in a coiled form (as opposed to uncoiled form). 2) The bhEdAbhEda school avers that the relation between Brahman and the Universe is similar to light and the luminous body. Just as both are different and yet have the essential nature of tejas, similarly both Brahman and the Universe, despite being different,are of the same jAthi. There is thus both difference and identity in that sense. 3)

The bhEda school postulates that just as the jIva was proven (in previous sUtrAs) to be an inseparable attribute of Brahman on account of being its’ body, that cannot exist independently of Brahman, is completely distinct from Brahman just as the body and self, the attribute and substance, are different, so is the Universe also having this relationship with Brahman.

ShrI rAmAnuja opines that 1) and 2) are pUrvapakShAs and hence rejected. 1) implies that the same Brahman is the Universe, which violates texts declaring difference, changelessness and blemishlessness of Brahman. 2) implies that both sentient Brahman and insentient Universe are of the same essential nature which is again wrong. Thus, 3) as proven by texts such as “yasya prithvi sharIraM” is correct and the Universe/jIvAs can referred to as adjectives of Brahman in much the same way as guNa, amSha, etc on account of inseparability arising from sharIrAtma bhAva. So, the brahma sUtra is not intending to validate any theory of viSeSha here. Here, a confusion needs to be cleared. “Coils” or “snake coil” here signifies the snake characterized by the particular twist in the body or when the body is arranged in such a twisted formation, such a “twist” being the attribute of the snake. The abhEdavAdis are thus comparing “snake in coiled form” and “snake in uncoiled form”. It is true that the actual twist or arrangement of the snake body itself is referred to as “coil” normally, which is an inseparable (and hence different) attribute of the snake and lasts as long as conditions for it exist. However, as the guNa is a viSesha dharma that distinguishes the uncoiled form of snake from the coiled form of snake, the sUtra terms the snake itself in coiled form as “coil” as this is how the pUrvapakShins use the analogy. The sUtra is not referring to the “coils” as an attribute of the snake, as only the analogy of the abhEdavAdins is being discussed. The snake is called “coils” to distinguish it from a snake in uncoiled form. In much the same way as the substance characterized by “cow-ness” is called a cow because the attributes comprising “cow-ness” are viSesha dharmas that distinguish it from say, a horse. But the cow can also have other attributes such as eyes, eating grass, etc common to the horse; yet it is called “cow” because of the fact that those cowness attributes are svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas. The initial statement of the author (regarding bliss of Brahman and snake coil comparison) is wrong by the way. “Brahman is bliss” and “Brahman’s bliss” are two different phrasings. One means Brahman is constituted by bliss and the second means he is qualified by bliss. It is not proven by the author that both are the same; indeed, that is the debate here and both are different in truth. Whereas, “Coil of Snake” means “coil belonging to snake” and “Snake Coil” means “Snake qualified by Coil”, which have the same meaning, ie, that coil (signifying the twist or arrangement) is an attribute inseparable to the snake. The phrasings are the same unlike Brahman/Bliss statements. If your analogy were to work, you should have said “Coil is Snake” and “Snake Coil/Coil of Snake”. However, coil when it refers to the twist or arrangement which is an attribute, is quite clearly, not the snake itself. Thus, attribute is different from a substance and hence statements like “bliss of Brahman” imply an inseparable association between Brahman and its’ attribute of bliss. At the same time, we have shAstra declaring Brahman is bliss, ie, it is also his essential nature, whereas pratyaksha and common usage show that one can never say coil (as an attribute) is verily the snake.

Of course, if we refer to “coil” as denoting the snake in that particular form characterized by the arrangement, then “coil” and “snake” are two different states of the same substance and this is not a compatible comparison with Bliss/Brahman statements that involve substance and attribute. No need to make a meal out of it. It is quite easy to understand. PP: Katopanishad 2-1-14 says “"On the mountains, in hard-to-reach peak places, when the rain falls, slides down fast; just like that one, who sees difference between God and His guṇa-s and one guṇa and another guṇa of the Lord goes to the nether worlds, flowing down fast." SD: Such a wrong translation. As usual, the author’s tradition throws context to the winds while interpreting such statements. Here is the meaning: yathodakaM durge vR^iShTaM parvateShu vidhAvati| evaM dharmAn pR^ithak pashya.nstAnevAnuvidhAvati|| ~ KatOpanishad 4.14 Meaning: Just like water rained on top of a mountain flows on all sides of the hills, even so one who perceives the dharmas such as devAntaryAmitva, manuShyAntaryAmitva, etc (of the supreme self) differently, (ie, as belonging to different ones) runs after them only. “dharmas” refer to paramAtma being qualified by a deva, manuShya, etc as he is their innerself. Rain falling on top of a mountain flows in different currents. However, all these currents are of one substratum. Similarly, the dharmas of paramAtma such as “being the innerself of a deva, being the innerself of a manuShya, being the innerself of a rock, being the innerself of a tree, etc” are belonging to the same Person. It is the same being who is the indweller of all entities without undergoing any changes and there are no different beings as indwellers either. If one sees these different dharmas as related to different substrata, he falls into the abyss of samsAra. Look at the context and you will find the answer. This mantra occurs after mantra 4.13 which says that the Supreme Brahman, who is of the size of a thumb, is the Lord of the past and future, and that he alone is today and tomorrow. By this, it is meant that the things of the present time and things of the future are all having that Brahman as their inner self. A doubt may arise that since there are different things of different sizes and diversity, is it possible that one entity alone can be their innerself? So, this current mantra logically summarizes that by saying, “As he alone is the innerself of all, one who thinks different beings are inner selves of different things like deva, manuShya, etc just because the deva, manuShya, etc are different will attain samsAra only”. The same Brahman alone is everywhere. Furthermore, the pramANa which shows this interpretation is legit comes from the slOka which was quoted by the author previously: brahmādiguṇavaiśeṣyādānandādiḥ…. Meaning: The bliss and powers of Brahma and others, due to their unique/peculiar attributes (of residing in their respective abodes/positions)…..

Where it is said that the bhOga and aishwarya (AnanAdiH) arise from the “guNa vaiSeshya” of Brahma and others. Here “guNa” refers to their states of being in a brahma body, in the abode of Brahma, etc which is responsible for the “AnandAdiH”. Thus, “guNa” or “dharma” refers to them abiding thus, and similarly, for paramAtma, “dharmas” in this Upanishad vAkya refer to him abiding as the antaryAmin of a deva, manuShya, etc in those states. Thus, context should always be studied before interpreting vAkyAs. PP: They are claiming that they are inseparably linked. What links them and Who links them and when the link was made. Does another sentient substance links or non-sentient substance links? Why Should God link to the guṇa-s and before linking, were they lying around somewhere? SD: They are different states of his dharma-bhUta-jnAna, which is the attribute of every sentient entity. Brahman being an eternal entity unchanging and unaffected by external forces, the inseparable attributes have been eternal. A sentient entity is always associated with DBJ as well. Only a novice would forget anAditva. PP: In jaḍa substances, one can see the inseparability as non-difference like "mango-ness" and mango". One can speak of inseparability in case of non-difference and in case of difference also. The mangoness and mango are non-different and inseparable. SD: As mentioned before, the author is assuming wrongly and against the grain of a neutral debate beforehand that “mango-ness” = “mango”, so both are non-different. One can never speak of inseparability as non-difference. Inseparability requires two distinct entities. It is against all logic. The “mango-ness” is nothing but the definingattributes (svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas) such as taste, color, etc. The term “mango” denotes the substance of the mango (of the nature of bearing seeds or being a seed receptacle)characterized by the attributes that constitute “mango-ness” (taste, color, etc)as well as the nirUpita-svarUpa-viSeSaNas (fleshiness, etc). So, “mango-ness is inseparable to mango” means that “the attributes constituting mango-ness are inseparable to the substance of the mango”. The basic nature (svarUpa) of a fruit is to be a receptacle for seeds and nothing can exist as a fruit if it is not such a receptacle; this is the botanical definition and common to all fruits. It is when they are associated with attributes such as taste, color, etc that are called “mango-ness”, “orange-ness” that they can be differentiated. Two objects with identical svarUpAs thus are different when inseparably associated with different attributes. Since the same substances(of the nature of being seed receptacles) can be associated with different attributes such as “orange-ness”, “mango-ness”, etc which results in one substance characterized by “mango-ness” and another characterized by “orange-ness”, they are called “mango”, “orange”, etc (these terms referring to substance characterized by attributes). Note that the botanical definition of a fruit’s nature has been used as an example to illustrate the flaw in the author’s position; we have no interest in going into scientific debates on the merits of such a definition.

In addition, taste, color, etc of mango can be replicated artificially by chemicals in a lab which have the same odor, taste, color, etc of a mango. This shows that the attributes can have an outside existence of the mango svarUpa and hence are different. The fruits, orange and mango, can both be called “fleshy” as they have that attribute. But it is a nirUpitasvarUpa-viSeShaNa which doesn’t distinguish them; hence, the substances in association with the defining attributes of “mango-ness” and “orange-ness” are called “mango” and “orange”. When we say “mango”, “puruSha”, “brahman”, it includes both substance and attributes qualifying the substance. It is an illogical argument to say “mango-ness is inseparable from a “mango” and hence they are non-different” which was refuted earlier. The right argument is “mango-ness is a collective term for the attribute(s) characterizing the substance (seed bearing/receptacle nature) of the mango (a term denoting substance in association with attributes)”. Lastly, it cannot be argued that just because we use phrases like “handle of a jar” or “taste of a mango”, it implies that “handle” and “taste” are not included in the term “jar” and “mango”. For the terms “jar” and “mango” encompass more than just handle and taste – they include the substanceand all the attributes characterizing the substance, of which handle and taste are but one. Hence, it is quite logical to use such phrases. How can “inseparability” be non-difference? Common sense shows that inseparability requires 2 distinct, ie, different, entities to be inseparable. Pratyaksha itself demolishes this theory of nondifference. PP: The jīva and Paramātma are different and inseparable in one way that jīva cannot exist without Paramātma. Where ever jīva is there Paramātma is there, but we cannot say that whereverParamātma is there, that particular jīva is also there SD: This is a vague statement. The jIva is the sharIra of paramAtma. Jagat is also the sharIra of paramAtma. They are both inseparably associated with him thus. The paramAtma is the ground of all being. There is no place that he is not. What is even the purpose of bringing this up? Nothing. PP: How can one conclude that the Lord's difference from His qualities culminates in the (glorification of his svarUpa)? This is another case of "pṛṣṭatāḍanāddantabhaṅgaḥ". SD: It is not difference that is praised, but the actual qualities itself. Meaning, a glorification of kalyANa guNAs culminates in a glorification of Brahma-svarUpa. The shAstra focuses more on his qualities than his svarUpa. As explained earlier, if one praises the radiance of the sun,it ends in a praise of the sun’s nature. Because the same radiance is not as great in a fire as compared to the sun.It is only the radiance as an inseparable attribute of the sun as opposed to fire, whichhas greatness and this in turn is due to greatness of the sun’s svarUpa it is associated with. It cannot be said both radiances of fire and sun are different; they are one and the same attribute (prabha) existing in inseparable association with different entities. Similarly, if one praises the attributes of

Brahman as superior to all, it is on account of these attributes being associated with a svarUpa that is superior to all svarUpas, thus glorifying the svarUpa only. A rough analogy can be given. Take a red dress. On Person A, if he wears the dress, someone may say “it looks awful on A”. But if Person B wears the dress and it looks good on him, they say “That’s a beautiful dress, looks so good on B…B makes the red dress look good, etc”. Here, the dress is the same, whereas its’ determined as good looking or bad depending on the person it is worn on, which makes it show its beauty more. Similarly, attributes like mercy, courage, etc may exist for one person, but these qualities appear truly great when they are associated with Brahman. Thus, brahma-svarUpa is lauded when the guNAs are praised. PP: The question of praising one over the other arises only after it is established? Why indulge in abhyupagamavAda? SD: It has been established by the very fact that an attribute is different to a substance as it is inseparably associated with it, means that the attributes of Brahman are different from his essential nature and inseparably associated with him. And since much of the shAstra waxes eloquent on the attributes, it gives more importance to the attributes.Which again, only points to the greatness of his svarUpa. It is the author who has not established his ludicruous position of “Brahman is identical with its’ head, hands, feet etc”. PP: It is not possible to define Brahman as defining an entity is putting a limitation to that. Brahman is beyond any definition. Note - yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha – Taittirīya Upaniṣat - 2-4-1 SD: Wrong. That vAkya only says that Brahman cannot be described fully, as his greatness is infinite. “Neti Neti” means his greatness is not so much that it can be described fully in words. Certain lakshaNas define Brahman. SvarUpa nirupaka dharmas are qualities which enable determination of his jnAnAndamaya svarUpaand these include satyaM, jnAnaM, anantaM, AnandaM and amalatvaM. Other qualities are nirupita svarupa viSesanas – qualities comprehended after svarUpa is known. Take a cow and a horse. How do you differentiate the two? You say a cow has an udder whereas the horse does not have one. So, the udder is a “svarUpa nirUpaka dharma”, as it distinguishes the cow from the horse. However, other characteristics like “having ears, eating grass” are common to both and cannot be used to differentiate a cow and a horse. These characteristics are “nirUpita svarUpa viSesanas”. Similarly, the characteristics that help define the essential nature of Brahman as “jnAnAndamaya svarUpa” are called “svarUpa nirUpaka dharmas” and are satyaM, jnAnaM (dharma bhUta jnAna), anantaM, AnandaM and amalatvaM according to the Upanishads (AnandaM and jnAnaM are attributes in addition to being the essential nature of Brahman).

Note that jnAna as an attribute is DBJ which is different from svarUpa jnAna. Ananda is there where jnAna is, so it constitutes his nature and is also an attribute. The attributes that are comprehended only after the essential nature of Brahman is known, are called “nirupita svarUpa viSesanas”. These include jnAna (which is both a svarUpa nirUpaka dharma as well as nirUpita svarUpa viSesaNa), bala, veerya, aishwarya, etc. As an example, other beings too have qualities like mercy, courage, wealth, etc. It is only when the svarUpa of Brahman is known through svarUpa nirUpaka dharmas, that these other qualities like mercy, courage etc are known to be infinite and great when associated with Brahman and hence unique to him, being auspicious attributes worthy of meditation. He also has other auspicious attributes which are unique to him, of course. “jagatkAraNatva” is described as a lakshaNa of Brahman by the brahma sUtras. It must be understood that this is not a svarUpa nirUpaka dharma, but a functional definition of Brahman in association with cit and acit as his body, as the Supreme Being is saviSesha and should have functions of creation, preservation and destruction. PP: Defining is claiming a complete understanding of some thing. SD: One can define a “black hole” as something that sucks objects in by gravity and has a singularity. Doesn’t mean a person knows what a singularity is or what is inside a black hole. Or to keep it simple, one can define a cow as “having an udder” without knowing a cow is herbivorous. PP: Also, one must note the difference between sentient (cetana) and nonsentient (jaḍa). The qualities of sentient and the qualities of nonsentient will be different. No one will say that a stone has jñāna or Ananda. No one will say that so and so jīva is hard, soft, wet, dry, green, yellow or pink, etc. In case of qualities of jaḍa, the qualities can be "yāvaddravyabhāvi" or "ayāvaddravyabhāvi". But in case of cetana, the qualities are all "yāvaddravyabhāvi" only, otherwise, one will be forced to attribute vikāra for cetana. It is quite well-known that during saMsāra avastha, the abhivyakti will not be there. So, for cetanas, the qualities will be non-different from the cetana. For jaḍas, the yāvaddravyabhavi qualities are non-different from the substance and ayāvaddravyabhavi qualities will have bheda and abheda. SD: Dunno what all this is about. The simple answer is a couple of lines – anything inseparably associated with another thing, is different from that thing. Hence, “inseparability” itself implies difference as one entity cannot be inseparable from itself. Attributes are different from the substance. The jIva is also jnAnAnandamaya svarUpa, but its’ “svarUpajnAna” is “seshatva”. It also has jnAna (DBJ) and ananda as attributes. No vikAra happens to the svarUpa because changes occur only in the DBJ. We do admit vikAra in the DBJ of the cEtana, that alone is responsible for different dispositions in samsAra. During pralaya, the non-difference between cEtana and acEtana seems so only because DBJ is reduced to nil. The cEtana still is different from acEtana on account of the “I” nature (jnAna svarUpa).

The longwinded diatribe provided by the author serves no purpose other than mental obfuscation of simple concepts. PP: Is the jñāna of Brahman sentient or non-sentient? If it is sentient, who is that sentient? If it is nonsentient, how can a sentient entity have a jaḍa as its quality? SD: This ridiculous question makes no sense. The nature of Brahmanis that he is “jnAnAnandamaya svarUpa”. At the same time, jnAna is also an attribute in the sense of perceiving external objects. Brahman knows by the jnAna he has (as an attribute). svarUpa jnAna of Brahman is nothing but “consciousness in the form of seshitva”. It is “I-ness”. As svarUpa-jnAna reveals itself to itself, it is sentiency. He by his nature, is master of himself and all others. If others do not exist, he remains the master of himself. svarUpa jnAna of jIva is “seshatva”, which is again revealing itself to itself as a servant of Brahman, and as one can see, jIva’s very nature depends on Brahman for existence thus. Now for dharma-bhUta-jnAna. Though DBJreveals itself and external objects to the jIvaand Brahman, it is not knowledge of the form of “I-ness” and thus is insentient. In other words, DBJ can only reveal itself and externalthings to another (the jIva/Brahman). It cannot know by itself. It is the “knowing quality” whereas the jIva/Brahman (svarUpa-jnAna) is the knower. There is knowledge. There is the knower who is jnAna svarUpi. Then there is the attribute of knowing. Synonyms for jnAnam (like samvit, anubhUti) relate to karta or karma. That shows jnAna exists as an attribute as well. Then the objection - how can a sentient entity have a jaḍa as its quality– makes no sense. A person may be beautiful, rich, etc. Attributes of “beauty”, “richness” have no sentience, do they? Or are you saying you are some weird as-yet-unknown alien, your attributes of being rich, etc are sentient and you can speak with them? For that matter, the insentient body of the cEtana itself is an attribute of the cEtana as long as it is inseparable to the latter. And do not tell me these attributes are identical with substance, because that topic is under debate. A sentient being is consciousness/knowledge-self by nature, it is “I”. And every sentient being has knowledge which is dharma-bhUta-jnAna. Since Ananda is present wherever jnAna is, Brahman is both Ananda-svarUpi and AnandAshraya. Thus the statements “Anandam BrahmaNo vidvAn” and “sa eko brahmaNa AnandaH” are explained respectively. Ahirbudhnya Samhita clearly states that knowledge is both an attribute of Brahman as well as his essential nature: ajaDaM svAtmasaMbodhi nityaM sarvavagAhanaM j~nAnaM nAma guNaM prAhuh prathamaM guNacintakaH

svarUpaM brahmaNastacca guNashca parigIyatE (~Ahirbudhnya Samhita 2.56) Meaning: (Knowledge of Brahman is) self-luminous (ajadaM), manifests itself(svAtma sambodhi), is eternal (nityaM) and entering everywhere, ie, vibhutva or illumines all external objects. The guNa named knowledge is said to be the foremost of the 6 guNas that are well-known, and is referred to or praised as the essential nature and also as the attribute of Brahman. This slOka is dedicated to delineating the characteristics of knowledge that is both inherent to (svarupa jnAna) and possessed by Brahman (DBJ). “ajadaM svAtma sambodhi” – Knowledge is self-luminous and manifests itself. In the case of svarUpajnAna, it reveals itself to itself and is of the form of “I”. In the case of Brahman’s DBJ, it is revealing itself and external objects to Brahman, but lacks the “I-ness”, ie, it cannot know by itself. “nityaM” – Both svarUpa jnAna and DBJ are imperishable. “sarva vagAhanaM” – The DBJ of Brahman enters everywhere, ie, it reveals external objects to Brahman. svarUpa of Brahman is vibhu, so “sarva vagAhanaM” refers to the vibhutva of brahma-svarUpa as well. Note that this dual description is not possible for the jIva as its’ svarUpa is aNu. Then, the slOka says that the guNa named knowledge is the foremost of the 6 attributes. This guNa is a state of DBJ by which Brahman knows all the sufferings of the jIvAs. Thus, jnAna is a kalyANa guNa. Finally, the last line clarifies that Brahman is not only known to be possessing knowledge as an attribute, but is also knowledge-self by nature. Note that one cannot try to twist this slOka and say “knowledge is spoken of as svarUpaM and guNam, and thus svarUpa=guNa”. The reason is because this slOka is in the form of a clarification that exists only for knowledge and not other attributes. Only because knowledge constitutes both essential nature and is also an attribute, with substance and attribute being different, is such a slOka needed to explain it. It is the same for Ananda, but that is self-evident - where knowledge is, there Ananda also is. There are no slOkas that similarly explain balaM, vIryaM, etc., so this shows that the intent of this slOka is to clarify that knowledge which is a guNa of Brahman, is also constituting the brahma-svarUpa, which is distinct and inseparably associated with the guNa. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need such a clarification. Secondly, the usage of two “ca”s in “svarUpaM brahmaNas tac ca guNasca” shows that svarUpaM and guNa are different and inseparably associated only. PP: svarūpajñāna of the Lord for example. If He is different, then it must be external to the Lord. Since they are different, is He inside the jñāna or Is this external jñāna of the Lord inside Him ? - In either case, He is dependent on jaḍa jñāna. Same way, He will be dependent on his all other guṇa-s as well. This will be a huge flaw in Him.

SD: SvarUpa jnAna is the nature of the Lord. It is different as well as inseparable from the svabhAva jnAna which is the attribute (DBJ). “svabhAva” is a term that can denote attributes, it does not always mean “inherent nature”, so I am using that term colloquially in that sense. Brahman is not dependent on anything. When we say “Brahman”, we are talking about a sentient entity characterized by its’ DBJ. Saying Brahman depends on his DBJ for knowledge is like saying “a beautiful person depends on his beauty for being beautiful” – it is an illogical and non-existent statement. It is actually the opposite - his attributes are truly great as they are in association with his svarUpa. In fact, anything that associates with brahma-svarUpa attains greatness on account of it. Even the jIva is a sentient, existing being only due to being the inseparable attribute of Brahman on account of association with him as his body. PP: There is nothing that differentiates Brahman and its body. That is attributing flaws to the Brahman. And also that goes against the scriptures, as will be shown later on. Further, the quotes from Viṣṇu purāṇa that they use go against their own claims. viṣṇoḥ sakāśādudbhūtaṁ jagat-tatraiva ca sthitaṁ stithisamyamakartā'sau jagato'sya jagacca saḥ where 'jagat cha saḥ' directly equates Viṣṇu with the world. SD: Exactly in what manner is difference of Brahman and its’ body a flaw? Brahman is neither dependent on his body, nor does he derive anything from his body, nor does he associate with that body out of karma or by force, nor does he suffer any changes when the body undergoes changes, and nor is he identical to the body so that he is affected by the body. Absolutely no flaws in this and it is the idea of “identity with the body” that is non-scriptural. How does this “go against our claims”? That “jagat cha saH” is explained by sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. Thelogic states that when two entities are inseparable to each other as one is the body of the other, then both will be referred to by the same name. “Jagat is vishNu” - Here, the term “Jagat” refers to the antarAtma who has the Universe as his body. Just as “Jack” refers to the jIvAtma who has the body designated “Jack”, this logic is used and “jagat” refers to paramAtma who has jagat as his body. All objects are his body and thus their names extend to the Atman (vishNu). Saying “Jagat is vishNu” then, means, “The antarAtma of the jagat is vishNu”. The vishNu purANa clearly shows how to meditate on Brahman devoid of its’ body, ie, divyAtma svarUpa. Quoting from sacred texts (rough translation is enough): prasannacāruvadanaṃ padmapattropamekṣaṇam / sukapolaṃ suvistīrṇalalāṭaphalakojjvalam // samakarṇāntavinyastacārukarṇavibhūṣaṇam / kambugrīvaṃ suvistīrṇaśrīvatsāṅkitavakṣasam // valītribhaṅginā magnanābhinā codareṇa vai / pralambāṣṭabhujaṃ viṣṇum athavāpi caturbhujam // samasthitorujaṅghaṃ ca susthitāṅghrikarāmbujam /cintayed brahmabhūtaṃ taṃ pītanirmalavāsasam // kirīṭacārukeyūrakaṭakādivibhūṣitam // śārṅgaśaṅkhagadākhaḍgacakrākṣavalayānvitam // ViP_6,7.85ab //cintayet tanmayo yogī

samādhāyātmamānasam // tāvad yāvad dṛḍhībhūtā tatraiva nṛpa dhāraṇā / vrajatas tiṣṭhato 'nyad vā svecchayā karma kurvataḥ / nāpayāti yadā cittāt siddhāṃ manyeta tāṃ tadā //tataḥ śaṅkhagadācakraśārṅgādirahitaṃ budhaḥ /cintayed bhagavadrūpaṃ praśāntaṃ sākṣasūtrakam // sā yadā dhāraṇā tadvad avasthānavatī tataḥ /kirīṭakeyūramukhair bhūṣaṇai rahitaṃ smaret // tad ekāvayavaṃ devaṃ cetasā hi punar budhaḥ / kuryāt tato 'vayavini praṇidhānaparo bhavet // ViP_6,7.89 // tadrūpapratyayā caikā saṃtatiś cānyaniḥspṛhā /taddhyānaṃ prathamair aṅgaiḥ ṣaḍbhir niṣpādyate nṛpa // tasyaiva kalpanāhīnaṃ svarūpagrahaṇaṃ hi yat / manasā dhyānaniṣpādyaṃ samādhiḥ so 'bhidhīyate // (~vishNu purANa 6.7.80-91) The meditating sage must think (he beholds internally the figure) of Vishńu, as having a pleased and lovely countenance, with eyes like the leaf of the lotus, smooth cheeks, and a broad and brilliant forehead…(etc etc)………when this image never departs from his mind, whether he be going or standing, or be engaged in any other voluntary act, then he may believe his retention to be perfect. The sage may then meditate upon the form of Vishńu without his arms, as the shell, mace, discus, and bow; and as placid, and bearing only his rosary. When the idea of this image is firmly retained, then he may meditate on Vishńu without his diadem, bracelets, or other ornaments. He may next contemplate him as having but one single limb, and may then fix his whole thoughts upon the body to which the limbs belong. This process of forming a lively image in the mind, exclusive of all other objects, constitutes Dhyána, or meditation, which is perfected by six stages; and when an accurate knowledge of self, free from all distinction, is attained by this mental meditation, that is termed Samádhi….. (vishNu purANa, Chapter 7) This shows how to proceed from “sAlambana yOga” or meditation on the form of the Lord, to “nirAlambana yOga” – meditation on the divyAtma svarUpa of the Lord devoid of his body, characterized by all auspicious attributes like satyaM, jnAnaM, anantaM, etc. This section of the vishNu purANa is explained by shrI vedAnta desikan in his beautiful work “sharanAgati deepika” as follows: mAnAtilanghi sukha bOdha mahAmburAshou magnA striseema rahitE bhavata: svaroopE | taapatrayENa vihatim na bhajanti santa: samsAra gharma janitEna samAdimanta: || (sharanAgati deepika, sloka 23) Meaning: Some of the yOgis meditate on your divyAthma svaroopam instead of your body, its beauty, Your divya aabharaNams and weapons. These yOgis adopt thus the nirAlamBana yOgam to experience you. Your divyAthma svaroopam is an ocean of bliss and Jn~Anam. That divyAthma svaroopam of Yours is beyond the limits of dEsam, kaalam and vasthu. It cannot be confined to any particular place or other. It cannot be limited by time in the sense that You are present only at one time or the other. It cannot also be defined by factors such as vasthu nirNayam (being constituted by a particular vasthu). That divyAthma svaroopam is beyond all these measures. It is present at all places, times and forms. A fortunate yOgi, who is immersed in nirAlamBana yOgam, feels like the one who gets the relief from the scorching heat of summer by dipping into a pond with cool waters. His

three samsAric afflictions (tApams) are removed. He gains mOksham after getting relief from the three tApams This slOka is a commentary on the above section of vishNu purANA (considering I didn’t quote the Sanskrit mUla of the purANa, atleast the slOka helps to understand it). The very idea of first meditating on the body of the Lord, then slowly reducing the “quantity” of body you are meditating on, is to lead one to meditate on the divyAtma svarUpa of Brahman that is distinct from the insentient body. The sAttvata samhita also differentiates the Lord and his body as follows: SAntaha samvit-svarUpastu bhaktAnugraha-kAmyayA anaupamyEna vapushAhy-amUrtO mUrtatAm gataha ~ (sAttvata samhita 2.69-70) Meaning: The Ultimate Reality is distinct from his form (amUrta), but it assumes a form (mUrtatA) for the sake of devotees and this form is incomparable, ie, made of suddha sattvaMand appropriate to reflect his greatness (anupama) Note that “amUrta” means “distinct from his form” as opposed to “formless” . Since he is ever associated with a form, there is no need to interpret “amUrtan” as “formless”. “amUrtan” cannot mean “devoid of a material form” here since “anaupamyEna vapushA” covers that. Being distinct from his form, he is independent of it, that is the implication. The body he has is not for his own sake and nor does it serve him any purpose, but for his devotees to enjoy, as they may not have the knowledge to enjoy his divyAtma svarUpa characterized by sakala kalyANa guNAs. The body is thus, suited to his nature, ie, he can appropriately display his guNAs via the body in a manner that even the lowest intellects can see and enjoy. It does not mean that Brahman is dependent on his body in any manner. Its‘ just that we cannot understand the greatness of the divyAtma svarUpa of Brahman adequately. It also does not mean the experience of the body is only for “alpa-buddhis”; the body is appropriately suited to him and thus is the object of meditation for great jnAnIs. In moksha, there is experience of svarUpa-rUpa-guNa-vibhUtis. Note, when we say “Brahman’s svarUpa” or “Your svarUpa”, it is not a contradiction. Terms like “Brahman”, “your”, etc indicate the aggregate of svarUpa + attributes. That is why one can even say “my svarUpa” without needing to concede a non-difference between svarUpa and attributes. PP: Their position - P1. As stated, Viṣṇu purāṇa differentiates Brahman and its body. P2. They also claim that jagat is His body. P3. The above quote directly equates Viṣṇu with the world, which is His body !!Since Viśiṣṭādvaita takes all these literally, Brahman is equated with His body and also differentiated from His body. One can see an obvious self-contradiction.

SD: This is such a poor understanding of vishishtadvaita. “Jagat is vishNu” delcares the antaryAmin of the jagat, for which the jagat is the body, is vishNu, that’s all. The antaryAmin is termed “Jagat” in the same way the name “Jack” extends to the soul in the body of Jack. Inseparability of body and self leads to this. One of the key conclusions of vishishtadvaita is “sAmAnAdhikaraNya”, ie, how a body and the self can be referred to by the same name. The sharIrAtma bhAva is a ghataka shruti used to explain the shrutis like “ahaM brahmAsmi”, “sarvaM khalv idaM brahma” etc using this logic. If the author did not have knowledge of this prior to embarking on a “refutation” of vishishtadvaita, serious questions about his scholarship and eligibility abound. PP: Then there are expressions like paramam sāmyamupaiti. Here the comparison is in some respects only, but not all. Being devoid of sorrow, having reached one's own Fullness (which again varies based on the inherent capacity), being without a gross body, etc are some of the respects, which are common to the Lord and the mukta jīvas. Hence the similarity is mentioned, which may sound like equality, but there is enough information that tells us what it is. We say "The king is a lion in the battlefield". Here the comparison is in the ferociousness, but not in all the qualities. One would not expect the king to walk on his fours. SD: Ah, atleast the author is able to use analogies like “The King is a Lion” in the proper way here. Yet, hypocritically, when analogies such as the husband-wife analogy is brought up (in a later section of this document below) for equal enjoyment of Ananda (the wife enjoying the qualities of the husband) or the gem-luster analogy for DBJ, the author starts stretching analogies provided by Vishishtadvaitins deliberately and purposely to ridiculous absurdities in the vein of “King walks on all fours” in an attempt to vainly criticize. One can see the hypocrisy. Anyway, let us see the commentary of the “paramaM sAmyaM upaiti” verse first. yadA pashyaH pashyate rukmavarNaM kartAramIshaM puruShaM brahmayonim.h | tadA vidvAn.h puNyapApe vidhUya nira~njanaH paramaM sAmyamupaiti ||(Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.3)|| Meaning: When the Seer of Brahman sees the Supreme Self Vasudeva, the ruler of the Universe, having an effulgent auspicious divine body, the creator of the Universe and the cause of the unmanifested , then that knower of Brahman shaking off virtue and sin, being freed from the taint of matter, attains supreme similarity. “pashyatIti pashya:” – this refers to a seer of Brahman. “rukmavarNaM” means that the Lord has a nonmaterial divine body (made of suddha sattvaM) as referenced in “AdityavarNaM”. He is BrahmayoniM. The term “purusha” signifies the Supreme Vasudeva.“paramaM sAmyaM” indicates the manifestation of the 8 attributes of apahatapApma, vijaraH, vimRutyu, vishOka, vijighits, apipAsa, satyakAma, satyakankalpa and similarity in form (assuming bodies made of suddha sattva) with Brahman. It does not

include equality in status with the Lord or his other kalyANa guNas, as muktas serve the Lord using these attributes outlined above and are dependent on him for even attaining these attributes. Just an observation. Even in the analogy provided by the Dvaitins, “The King is a Lion in the Battlefield” for “paramaM sAmyaM upaiti”, they cannot deny that there is absolute equality of certain attributes between King and Lion – namely, both are killing others, both are undefeated, both are feared and so on. So, there is absolute equality of certain factors in all similarities. Similarly, even if we take “paramaM sAmyaM upaiti” in that manner, there is absolute equality of certain attributes between mukta jIva and paramAtma. Bliss certainly is one of those. Of course, just as a King does not walk on all fours etc., differences exist between jIva and paramAtma and it is not absolute equality. So, even the dvaitin’s analogy can support the Vishishtadvaita position quite well. PP: vishNu purANa says :You alone are Paramartha. Oh, Lord of the universe, there is no one else, who is Paramartha. Your this mahima or glory pervades this entire universe of moving and nonmoving entities." There is no indication that the universe is described as His body. In fact the two attributes - Lord of the universe and One who pervades this entire universe of moving and nonmoving entities indicate that the Universe is not described as His body. SD: He pervades the Universe by virtue of indwelling in it as the Atma, with the Universe as his body. This is already explained in the BrihadAraNyaka and Subala Upanishad, that his sarvAntaryAmitva is by virtue of sharIrAtma bhAva. There is no compulsion to keep saying it. Just as the Lord is Lakshmipathi, but the shAstras see no requirement to always call him “lakshmi nArAyaNa” everywhere and just refer to him as nArAyaNa, vAsudeva, keshava etc, with lakshmipatitvaM being implied and self-evident whenever he is referenced, there is no need for shAstra to keep saying “everything is his body” in every single line describing his pervasion. For the Upanishads have already mentioned that everything is his body and he pervades everything in such a manner. Other pramANas that say the Universe and JIvas are the body of the Lord are: “tAni sarvAni tat vapu:” [vishNu purANa 1-22-86] --- Everything is his body (vapu) “tat sarvam vai harEs tanu: [vishNu purANa 1-22-38] – All this is the body (tanu) of Hari. “jagat sarvam sareeram tE” [vAlmiki ramAyaNa yuddha khANDa 20-26] – The entire Universe is his body. “yadambu vaiShnavaH kAyastato vipra vasundharA padmAkAra samudbhUtA parvatAbdhyAdisamyutA” [ vishNu purANa 2.17.37] From the waters which form the body of vishNu was produced the lotus shaped earth with its’ seas and mountains. [Note the usage of “kAya” in the above slOka. By “waters”, what is meant is the entire Universe which has arisen from “waters” or the subtle elements, which is the body of the Lord.]

“tanu”, “vapu”, “kAya”, “sharIra” – can the shAstra be more clearer than this? Compare this to the flimsy usage of “pratibimba” provided in the varAha puraNA or “pratirUpa” in katOpanishad without understanding the context in which the term was used. He is the Lord of the Universe, as the Universe is his body and eternally dependent on him for its’ existence, exists for his will and (in the case of sentient entities) serve him. He pervades the Universe as it is his body. Wonder why the author uses neutral pramANAs to forcibly see a contradiction where there is none. PP: "All this is One. What ever exists here, every tiny bit is that Achyuta. Nothing is more important than that. I am Him. You are that. All of this is Atmasvarūpa. Give up the illusory difference." Note the context and the meaing becomes very clear. The above verse means "He alone is the most important one in all things that exist. He is present in everything nad controls everything. He is called Achyuta as He is Indiminishable and undisplaceable. Nothing other than Him is independent and nothing is more important than Him. He is inside me and controls me and He is inside you and controls you. Thus He is Atma meaning Inner controller of all this. Stop seeing difference in His various forms. The illusory thinking that something other than Him can be independent has to be forsaken.". SD: Almost right. You should follow your own advice and note the context clearly. The reason why “I am Him”, “You are That” is said, is because “I” and “You” refer to the antaryAmin who has as his body everything else by the logic of sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. “One”, “Him”, “That” refer to Achuyta. The teaching is that the same Brahman indwells in all as the antaryAmin and has them as his body, and this antaryAmin is Achyuta. “All this is One” – “All this is only one entity, Brahman with everything as his body, ie, only one Brahman characterized by cit and acit”.Just as body and self, despite being distinct, are spoken of as one entity (“Jack” denotes Jack’s body and the self, yet is spoken of as one) due to inseparability, everything is only one entity, as all this is the body of that entity. Even if you are gonna say “he alone is the most important of all that exists”, that is only because of this logic – as he is the self and everything is his body, and the body cannot exist without the self, he alone is important. “I am him” – “My antaryAmin is that Achyuta”. “You are that” – “Your antaryAmin is that Achyuta”. Here, “I” and “You” refer to the antaryAmin of me and you on account of sharIrAtma bhAva and sAmAnAdhikaraNya (just as “Jack” refers to the self associated with Jack’s body), and this antaryAmin is identified with the one Lord who is Achyuta. Thus, “neha nAnAsti kinchana” – He alone is the sarvAntaryAmin and as he undergoes no changes despite his antaryAmitvam in diverse entities, he is the unchanging one or “Achyuta”. He is Achyuta, meaning, he is undiminishing and unchanging despite pervading diverse entities, having everything else as his body as he is free of karma and not constrained by the bodies. Thus, the name “achyuta” itself refutes ludicrous arguments of “dehanAsha”. Again, ironic of the author to quote a pramANA that undoes his own argument.

Another beautiful meaning of Achyuta is “one who does not let his devotees/servants slip”. The context suits this meaning as well – as all jIvAs are his seshas/servants by nature, he bears them as his body and makes them exist. Were they not his body, they would cease to exist, but he ensures their existence and thus does not let them slip. “Stop seeing difference in his various forms” is wrongly understood by the author as “stop seeing difference in his avatArAs, etc”. That is not the meaning as it doesn’t suit the context. That means, “stop seeing difference between Brahman who dwells in a rock, and Brahman who dwells in a human, a deva”, etc…. The wise one realizes that the same Brahman qualified by all auspicious attributes is dwelling everywhere and he does not undergo divisions, increase, decrease, etc by dwelling in different objects. This is neha nAnAsti kinchana. (Note: The opponent quotes several texts equating vishNu with various things, “sarvaM khalvidam brahma” etc…I will skip these as the point has been established). PP: avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ… in Gita proves one should not consider archa avatAra as the suddha sattva body of the Lord.From all the above śāstra pramāṇa-s, the Lord is to be taken as nondifferent from His body. The Viśiṣṭādvaitins claim that the icon is actually the avatāra of the Lord and hence the icon is His body. SD: On the contrary, it means that only fools mistake the Lord’s body as made of prakrtic elements in his avatArAs, and mistake him to be a normal being. That is the crux of the sloka. It also includes archa avatAra. Just as some miscreants think rAma, krishNa had ordinary human bodies, some think his archa avatAra has ordinary prakrtic body and that the Lord in these forms is born out of karma. One should have the understanding that all his forms, including Archa, are made of suddha sattva. Lord is different from his body. His body, the one assumed for avatArAs, is made of suddha sattva, not mere prakrti. He is not born out of karma, but by his own will, and assumes these bodies for sport. That is the teaching of the gIta verse. PP: Based on the above pramāṇa-s, when a question is put as to how can the jaḍa icon be equated to the Lord since He is same as His body, they counter it by saying that they differentiate between the Lord and His body and so they are not equating the jaḍa icon with the Lord. That is like going from frying pan to fire. Now they have to answer all the above objections and also the objections that ensue SD: This is like twisting your own tongue and then claiming other people are dumb as they cannot understand you when you talk. When we clearly say that the insentient bodies of the Lord, be it para-, vyUha-, vibhava and archa are all made of suddha sattva and different from him, where is the confusion? In fact, if you ask “how can jaDa icon be equated to the Lord as he is the same as his body”?, there is a flaw in the question because you have assumed your opponent accepts the non-difference between the Lord and his body. So, the reasonable answer is, “he is different from his suddha sattva body”. Capisce?

All the above objectionshave been answered. The lord is different from his body and can assume anything as his form. He also converts prakrti to suddha sattvam upon consecration by his will. His body, being different from him, undergoes transformations, whereas he is changeless. PP: The śuddha satva is claimed to be in the liberated world (mokṣa only). Surely the Lord is Omnipotent and so He can bring śuddha satva into this world as well. But then there have to be pramāṇa-s, which declare that. It cannot be svakapolakalpita. SD: True, for suddha sattva abode. In the shAstras, suddha sattva is claimed to be not only in the liberated world (ie, paramapada is made of suddha sattva), but is also claimed to be the material that the Lord’s body, which is different from him, is made of. His body is “panchOpanishad” mayaM, made of the five aprAkruta elements (paramEshti, pumAn, visvam, nivruththi, sarvam) wherever he is. So, it is seen in this world when he appears as vyUha, vibhava, antaryAmin (through meditation) and archa. But when we say “suddha sattva cannot be seen in this world”, It is meant that the baddha jIvAs, owing to their contraction of DBJ, are unable to cognize the self-luminosity of suddha sattva. Thus many dullards mistake the Lord’s body to be ordinary, not being able to see it properly due to their karmas. By the practice of yoga and cleansing oneself of sins, etc it is possible to understand the superior suddha sattva form of the Lord (compared to us, yogis are able to see it as shining, etc), but even then, the most perfect vision is attained only in paramapada. The same “purNAmadaM…” mantra itself includes ArchAvatAra as purNaM, as it only describes the 5 forms of the Lord. The pAncarAtra lists archa avatAra as the fifth of the five avatarAs of the Lord (para, vyUha, vibhava, antaryAmin and archa) as follows. These pramANAs are itself proof that the body of the Lord is made of suddha-sattva anyway. In fact, understanding a substance and attribute are different from each other is enough to understand that when Lord says “my body” rather than “I am the body”, then the body is different from him. But here goes. These pramANAs serve the double role of proving archa as an “avatAra” and also highlighting the form of the Lord as suddha sattvaM, distinct from him: (Lord says): Mama prakArah panceti prAhuh Vedanta pAragAh Paro vyUhasca vibhavO niyantA sarvadehinAM ArchavatArasca tathA dayAluH purushAkritiH (~ vishvaksEna Samhita) The meaning is self-explanatory. These are the 5 avatArAs of the Lord – para, vyUha, vibhava, antaryAmin and archa.Some Agama samhitAs often club antaryAmin and archa into vibhava and say there are 3 avatAras only – there is thus no contradiction between those statements and these ones The sAttvata samhita clearly identifies the Lord accepts the deity form as his suddha sattva body:

bimbAtkrtyAtmanA bimbe samAgatyAvatisthatEkaroti-amUrtAn akhilaM bhogasaktim tu ca AtmAsat (~sAttvata samhita, pAncharAtra 6.22) Meaning: With a disposition (AtmaNa) that is suited to the configuration/form (AkR^iti) of the archA mUrti/vigraha (bimba), he resides (avatiShThate) well/with pleasure, of his own will/complete with all his kalyANa guNAs (samyak), in that vigraha (bimbE). He makes as his own, ie, suited to him (karoti AtmasAt), the complete or full (akhilaM), non-material or suddha sattva form (amUrtAM), power of enjoyment (bhogashakti) The gist of this sloka is : 1) BhagavAn resides in the mUrti with a condition or disposition that is suited to the mUrti. Meaning, just as the mUrti is static, dependent and helpless, so is he. It also means, if we make a mUrti of bAla-mukunda, or rAma, etc, then he resides in the mUrti with the disposition of that particular avatAra. 2) However, this static, dependent and helpless condition is not due to any limitation or karma, but one assumed by him out of his own will, with pleasure and even in this state, he is characterized by all kalyANa guNAs, independent and the Supreme Master. He is still pUrNaM as evidenced by usage of “samyak”. It also means, despite the mUrti being limited to a specific form, and him displaying specific kalyANa guNAs, he nonetheless remains pUrNaM and does not become limited by it. 3) Being inside the vigraha upon consecration of mantrAs, he converts that prakrtic form of the vigraha into a form made of suddha sattvam, which is suited to him. This is meant by “karoti AtmasAt”. That it is transformed into suddha sattva is indicated by “a-mUrtAM” – not having a material form. 4) Then, the vigraha becomes complete or full of all the excellencesof suddha sattvaM (akhilaM), ie, it can be appropriately used by him to display his qualities of jnAna, bala, veerya, etc. 5) It is his “bhogashakti” or power of enjoyment as he receives the services of the jIvAs in that form, as he is bathed, dressed, etc. The idea is, once the proper mantras are said, bhagavAn enters the icon, and effectively converts the icon from material elements into suddha sattva. The icon is now “subhAshraya” or the substratum of auspicious attributes and is hence fit for meditation. You will find that the pAncharAtra waxes eloquent on the glories of archa avatAra in many places. It also of course, indicates the Lord is different from his body. The Lakshmi Tantra of the pAncharAtra declares: Aniruddhasya vistaro darshitastasya sAtvatE IarchOpi loukikI yA sA bhagavadrAvitAtmAnaM I ~ Lakshmi Tantra 2.59 Meaning: In the sAttvata (pAncharAtra agama), the various manifestations of Aniruddha are revealed– the archa (avatAra) of those (ie, for the sake of those) whose minds are immersed in the Lord (is also described here).

mantramantrEsvara nyAsAt sApi sadguNya vigraha I parAdyArcAvasAnE asmin mama rUpacatustayaM I~ Lakshmi Tantra 2.60 Meaning: Through the influence of mantrAs and their presiding deities (related to the performance of nyAsa or self-surrender), such (archa forms) also embody or reflect the 6 auspicious attributes of the Lord. They are all included in my 4 forms – starting from my parA state (in srI vaikunta) and ending with my archA state… In this sloka, “rUpacatustayaM” refers to para, vyUha, vibhava and archa which are visible forms (antaryAmin being hidden in all beings and not counted here). It doesn’t refer to the caturvyUhas who are mentioned separately in the same section afterwards. “sadguNya vigraha” means that the form of Brahman is made of suddha sattva that is appropriate to highlight his 6 qualities (jnAna, bala, veerya, aishwarya, shakti and tejas), as opposed to ordinary matter. It does not mean the bodies themselves have the 6 guNAs, rather, the bodies are made of suddha sattvam which is the appropriate material to highlight these 6 guNAs of the Lord dwelling in these bodies, just as a beautiful jewel box is used to encase adiamond necklace. All avatArAs (para, vyUha, vibhava, antaryAmin and archa) thus have bodies made of suddha sattva, as indicated in this sloka. More pramANas: svarUpaM pratimaM visnoH prasanna vadanekshanaM kritvamanaH pritikaraM suvarnarajatadibhiH taM arcayEt, taM prANamet, taM bhajEt, taM vichintayet, visati apasta-doshas tu taM eva brahma-rUpinaM(srI vishNu dharmam – 103.16) Saunaka Muni says, in srI vishNu dharmaM (Chapter 103), that – 1) the Lord takes for his body, whatever material his devotees choose for the purpose, 2) He becomes worshippable in such a body (by transforming it into suddha sattva), 3) The archAvatara with the Lord in it, having it as his body, itself becomes the final destination for brahmajnAnaM. The jAyakhya Samhita of pAncharAtra says “bhagavAn mandirEshu bhagavatO archa rUpinaH…” More pramANAs: devarSipitrusiddhAghai svayaM vA jagathAM shuddhachinmayII ~ Lakshmi Tantra 4.31

hitE

InirmitaM

bhagavadrUpaMarchA

sA

Meaning: BhagavAn’s archa forms conceived by himself or by various devas, rishis, pitrs, sages, etc for favoring the worlds are his forms consisting of pure knowledge These are all quoted by our AchAryAs. Note “bhagavadrUpaM” and “shuddha chinmayI” for archa in the last sloka, denoting that is a form made of suddha sattva.

“Suddha Sattvam" as a material is made up of "jnAnam" similar to how a jIvAtmA is. But "Suddha sattvam” doesn't possess the dharma-bhUta-jnAnam, as it lacks “I-ness”and thus is not sentient .Thus, it doesn'tbelong to the category of "cEtanA" because a "cEtanA" is an entity which can "know"/"percieve" ie.a chEtanA must necessarily have dharma bhUta jnAnam" . The Suddha Sattva material comprising Brahman’s divine body is also jnAnAndamaya, similar to his essential nature, which is also jnAnAnandamaya. Brahman, a cEtana, feels the sense of "I" (ie.pratyaktvam) and has DBJ. But, an acEtana like Suddha Sattvam does not posses pratyaktvam (ie. feeling of the "I" ness) and doesn't have DBJ. Archa forms of the Lord can be svayamvakta (self manifested) like Tirupati, or consecrated by devas, or consecrated by manuShyas and so on. The above sloka says that all these forms are pUrNam and made of suddha sattvam (shuddhachinmayI). The Lord’s body is thus made of this suddha sattva. Additionally, the Vishvaksena Samhita also specifies the following regarding consecration of ArchAvatAra: archAnyA dehavinyAsaM mantrasya vidadhItha ca I ~ vishvaksena samhita 10.107 Meaning: One should make an implacement of the (six fold) body of the mantra into the limbs of the icon. The idea is that consecration using mantras will facilitate the Lord to descend into the archA form as an avatAra and accept it as his body, converting it to suddha sattva. archAgathasyApivibhOrekamsadhAnakAraNAthI ghtEna dadhrA payasA madhunA ca kramAdh dvijaII ~ vishvaksena Samhita 14.126 The above sloka describes the method for consecration where it clarifies that the Lord becomes united with his archA form. The next sloka succeeding this (14.127) states that mantras pertaining to the forms beginning with Aniruddha etc are chanted to make this happen. Similarly, the following pramAnAs should be understood to include archAvatAra in its’ scope: yE yathA maam Prapadyante taamstathaiva bhajAmyaham I mama varthmAnuvarthanthE manushyA: Paartha sarvasa --- Gita 4.11 tham yathA yathOpaasathE tadhEva Bhavathi ~ (Satapatha BrahmaNa). To the objection that these don’t refer to archa forms, the pAncarAtra describes archa as the fifth of the 5 avatArAs of the Lord – para, vyUha, vibhava and antaryAmin being the other 4, as mentioned before. These are the forms assumed by him for his devotees and thus are included in the above statements. The padma purANa, quoted by srI manavAla mAmunigal also declares that the form is not to be thought of as material:

arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara-matir vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhir viṣṇor vā vaiṣṇavānāṁ kali-mala-mathane pāda-tīrthe 'mbu-buddhiḥ śrī-viṣṇor nāmni mantre sakala-kaluṣa-he śabde-sāmānya-buddhir viṣṇau sarveśvareśe tad-itara-sama-dhīr yasya vā nārakī saḥ arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara-matir vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhir viṣṇor vā vaiṣṇavānāṁ kali-mala-mathane pāda-tīrthe 'mbu-buddhiḥ śrī-viṣṇor nāmni mantre sakala-kaluṣa-he śabde-sāmānya-buddhir viṣṇau sarveśvareśe tad-itara-sama-dhīr yasya vā nārakī saḥ The pUrvapakSin may question – The above sloka also says “guru should not be thought of as a mere human being” , which means it is a mere statement of respect though his body is flesh and blood,and similarly archa is not to be thought of as “wood/stone” though it actually is. This is refuted as follows Answer - The sloka says that guru is not to be thought of as a mere human because he indeed has the amSha of the Lord in him which empowers him to teach others. So, the reference is to this real vishNu amSha. Similarly, while the Ganga resembles other waters, it really does have the purifying power of the Lord, having come from his lotus feet. Despite the fact that names of vishNu resemble other common words, these names indeed have the power of the Lord imbibed in them, despite being mere constructions of words. So, in that manner, though the archa forms resemble mere wood or stone, they have the quality of “suddha sattva”, being devoid of rajas and tamas in opposition to common materials which are a mix of triguNAs, being the body of the Lord. To reiterate, the guru resembles other humans, but has vishNu amSha. The Ganga resembles other waters, but has pavitratva. The vishNu mantras resemble common words, but has moksha-pradatva. The archa form which is the body of the Lord, resembles common wood/stone, but lacks rajas and tamas (suddha sattva). The analogy in the padma puraNA is that though these resemble ordinary things, they have a real and extraordinary quality in them – amSha of the Lord in the guru, power of the Lord in the names, purifying power of the Lord in the Ganga and the suddha sattva of the Lord’s body when he accepts the bodies of archa forms. Lastly, the pUrvapakSin may raise one more question – The sloka merely says the icons of the lord are not to be thought of on the same level as wood or stone, but there is no indication that they are suddha sattva. To that we reply – It is proven that the Lord is different from his body. His body is made of suddha sattva only everywhere as seen earlier (para, vyUha, vibhava, antaryAmin and archa). This form is referred to as “purNam” in the “purNamadam…” mantra that talks of the 5 forms of the Lord. The

pAncharAtra lists archa as the 5th form of avatAra as well. Thus, this sloka is to be viewed in the light of the above implying that the Lord himself accepts these temple forms as his body and after consecration, converts mere prakrti to suddha sattva by his will. The gita slOka “avajAnanti mAm muda…” itself refers to those who mistake his body as similar to that of a normal human, and it includes his forms in temples too, which may be mistaken as made of prakrti. This form is referred to as “viSvarUpaM” or full of auspicious attributes by the Skambha Sukta of AtharvaNa veda (Mantras 10 and 11) elaborate this tattva too and can be accessed here http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/skambha-suktam-part-2.html (search by keyword “archa”). Quoting it below: ́ yā́ viśváto yujyáte yā́ ca sarvátaḥ yā́ purástād yujyáte yā́ ca paścād ́ tāyáte tāṃ ́ tvā pr̥chāmi katamā́ sā́ r̥cām ́ 10 yáyā yajñáḥ prāṅ Meaning: That which is prior or ancient (para-vAsudevA), possessed of all auspicious attributes (yujyatE), and that which also comes later(vyUha) that is present in everything by virtue of being associated with everything as its body (antaryAmin), that which also has numerous forms (archa), That which proceeds as sacrifice, ie, acts for the benefit of devotees (vibhava), protects by being in front –which of those, I ask you, is the foremost of those worshippable forms? The meaning should be clear. These are the various forms of paramAtma – para, vyUha,vibhava, antaryAmin and archa. The superior form is indeed archa, the form in temples and houses owing to its excessive simplicity and ease of accessibility. “sarvataH” – he is present in numerous archa avatAra forms. prAn tAyatE – he stands in front and protects. The quality of being in front is a reference to the praNava where bhagavAn is the “akAra” (akArasya viSnoH) and in front of the jivA which is “makAra”. In the paramArtha stUti, srI vedAnta desikan says” abhirakshithum agratha: sTitham ThvAM PraNavE PaarTaraTE cha bhAvayantha:” – He is the akAra in praNava which signifies sarva rakshagatvam, and he also sat in the front portion of Arjuna’s chariot. Feminine gender for “yA” etc. is applicable since it qualifies the word “devatA” as in “yA devatA” “yayA devatayA” etc. Protection is the primary purpose of assuming these 5 forms. Which of these forms is the best? It is the form in temples, which is the answer given in the following mantra. yád éjati pátati yác ca tíṣṭhati prāṇád áprāṇan nimiṣác ca yád bhúvat ́ viśvárūpaṃ tát saṃbhū́ya bhavaty ékam evá 11 tád dādhāra pr̥thivīṃ Meaning: That (form of his) which moves (towards his devotees), that (form of his) which descends (patati) to a level so low that is easily accessible for his devotees,that which is also dependent (on his devotees), that which breathes (ie, lives by the services of his devotees), and does not breath (exist)

without the devotees (aprAnan), he who exists with closed eyes, ie, devoid of grace (towards the enemies of his devotees). That (form of) Brahman protects by supporting the (baddhas residing in) samsAra mandalam (prthivIm) by his form which is full with all auspicious attributes (viSvarUpam), that despite becoming connected with a body is alone the unique One, matchless in all respects. This mantra gives the answer to the previous mantra. The greatness of the archa avatAra is described here. It is the form in temples. This form is assumed only for the sake of his devotees, so it is said he moves towards them (in love) with that form. He, who is independent, unconquerable and not understood by the vedas, forsakes his lofty position and descends to a level whereby all his devotees can see him, unlike other forms which are only accessible to the liberated, or to the devas. In this form, he who is independent actually depends on his devotees for his existence as they feed him, bathe, dress him, etc. He feels very grateful and truly “alive” only when he receives these services. He, despite his independence and supremacy, cannot exist in this form without these devotees, as he is helpless without them. All this is assumed by him by his own will and not karma, for sport. This archa form cannot be understood by the ignorant who may think he is made of prakrti and mock his devotees. Thus to these type of asurAs, he, in the archa form, exists as “nimiSa”, a name occurring in the sahasranAma - na Ikshate iti nimishah – his graceful eyes do not fall on those opposed to his devotees. His helplessness does not mean he has reduced his greatness in anyway. It is not helplessness brought on by karma or inadequacy, but by his own supreme will to mingle with his devotees. This is reiterated by the mantra saying that the very form of sriman nArAyaNa in temples and houses is the supporter of all those in samsAra, since they cannot exist without partaking of his form characterised by auspicious attributes, signified by “viSvarUpam”. Though he assumes a body for the sake of his devotees and descends to samsAra, he is still “ekaH” – the supreme Brahman whose svarUpa-rUpa-guNa-vibhUti are matchless and unrivalled, being aprAkrta in nature. “eva” is to emphasize he alone always remains that way, unchanged, despite all the attributes he exhibits in the archa avatAra form. While the Lord has jIvAs and jagat as his body, his own supernal form full of auspicious attributes is not ever made of prakrtI. It is established that he is different from his body and hence, the body is made of suddha sattvam. Archa avatAra is an avatAra like vibhava etc and hence made of the same stuff as those bodies. PP: śuddha satva is aprākṛtik and so no one should be able to see it. SD: Wrong. The quality of being aprAkrta does not mean it cannot be seen. Only paramapada cannot be seen. The Lord’ s body in his vibhava avatArAs is made of suddha sattva and is visible. But the extent of such a sight depends on the expansion of DBJ.

Bodies of rAma, krishNa, etc are all made of suddha sattva only. But of course, the extent of its’ greatness can only be understood differently depending on different degrees of expansion of DBJ. A person with lot of pApa karmas and contracted DBJ would not be able to cognize its’ true glory. Just as some did not understand rAma, krishNa’s glory and thought they were human, similarly those with pApa karma think archa avatAra is made of prakrti and fail to understand the greatness of the Lord (avajAnanti mAm mudA..) In the vishNu purANa, there is an anecdote. In the episode of kaNDumaharShi and the apsaras pramlOcha, at the end of his alliance with her, aghast at the long time he has spent with her, kaNDu repairs to the temple of viShNu known as puruShOttama, to resume his penance. There praising Him and worshipping Him, he attained the highest goal. Swami Engalazhwan, a celebrated srI vaishnava AchArya who commented on the purANa, says in this context – “soulaByAderarchAvatArE pouShkalyam soochayanchapatham karoti brahmAkSharamiti || ‘asAviti’ puruShOttamAKya adrou purah sthitam puruShOtta masamjnam Bagavantam anguLyA nirdiSya Aha||” Indicating the profusion of qualities like soulaBya etc., in archAvatAra, kaNDumaharShi swears by the Brahman, pointing his finger at the mUrti of puruShOttama standing in front of him on the mountain known as puruShOttama, saying “this BhagavAn”, implying that he is possessed of all qualities in that form. PP: Did the vigraha become śuddha satva before the sculptor made the icon or after? If it is śuddha satva all the time, how could the sculptor make a vigraha by chiseling it? How was he able to sit on that vigarha while working on it? If it became śuddha satva later on, how can the prākṛitik vigraha get transformed into aprākṛtik śuddha satva? SD: It becomes suddha sattva after consecration when the Lord enters the body by following Agama shAstra. PP: Let us not even ask that question. Let us assume by some hook or crook, it became śuddha satva. Then we came across the instances, where muslims and other vandals destroyed the vigrahas. How were they able to destroy the śuddha satva vigrahas. SD: ShAstras say it is suddha sattva, so you can dispense with the sarcasm of saying “by hook or crook”. It ill befits someone who considers “deha nAsha” is a serious refutation of sharIrAtma bhAva. All part of his leela. Can not the omnipotent Lord allow destruction of his body, which is different from him and which does not violate the fact he (who is different from his body) is changeless? Of course he can. These situations are due to karma for the devotees who agonize over such happenings. But even so, it is clear that the majority of temples destroyed in history by Mughals, etc were not properly consecrated (as in the North where AgamAs are not strictly followed), or the temples of anyadevatAs who are under karma. The temples such as Srirangam, Tirupati, Badrinath, etc which are purAnic sthalAs with proper consecration have survived, perhaps by his sankalpa only. Of course, the

destruction or preservation of temples by itself is not a pramANa for archa avatAra which is clearly mentioned in the shAstras, so this is inconsequential, as the Lord himself is not affected by any changes and is indestructible. PP: śuddha satva is aprākṛtik and so no one should be able to see it. Let us assume that the Lord is so gracious that He allowed his devotees to see that. But then how could the vandals see it? SD: Lord’s body is suddha sattva only everywhere and different from him, even in vibhava. Same way Ravana, Hiranyakasipu and Kamsa saw his body in those avatArAs, vandals can see it. PP: Are the vigrahas of Viṣṇu alone are śuddha satva or are the vigrahas of other deities also śuddha satva? SD: The vigrahas consecrated with the Agama that conforms to Veda, and with knowledge of Hari as supreme, are suddha sattva. For this is an avatAra assumed for his devotees. The other devas have prakrtic bodies in samsAra and are consecrated by tAmasa Agamas, hence, the vigrahas are also prakrtic. In addition, vishNu consecrated in shiva temples is not suddha sattva, as the consecration is with a tAmasa Agama based on assumptions of vishNu being lower than these deities. Furthermore, Brahman has infinite svarUpa and svabhAva, so he is literally present in these bodies. But these devas are jIvAs with aNu svarUpa and hence only pervade the vigrahas with their DBJ, ie, controlling the bodies with their jnAna, but not being physically present in multiple bodies. PP: How come the Lord, with śuddha satva body does not even move around. Even the ordinary jīvas like all kinds of animals, humans and birds are able to move around with prākṛtik bodies, but the Lord with aprākṛtik body does not move around? SD: He moves around in his vibhava avatArAs which is also in a suddha sattva body. ParavAsudeva has a suddha sattva body, but he just sits and does not move in sri vaikunta. In the vyUha forms, the Lord lies down and does not move in the Ocean of Milk. Similarly in archa, he stays still as he wants to be dependent on his devotees in a reversal of roles. Technically, he moves around only in one avatAra rUpa, ie, vibhava. Other avatArAs are quite stationary. PP: Mahāvarāhapurāṇa says the following anityatvam dehahāniḥ duḥkhaprāptirapūrṇatā | nāśaścaturvidhaḥ proktaḥ tadabhāvo hareḥ sadā | tadanyeṣāṁ tu sarveṣāṁ nāśāḥ kecidbhavanti hi || "Destruction of self, Destruction of body, acqusition of sorrow, incompleteness are four kinds of destruction. Sri Hari does not have any of these. All the others have some kind of destruction." With the occasional destruction of the vigrahas, Sri Hari is now affected with one kind of destruction, namely destruction of body!!

SD:Translation is wrong (“destruction of self”? Really, THAT’S your translation for “anitya”?). This varAha purANa sloka has no relevance to the argument here. All it is saying is that the Lord is not subject to birth, death, sorrow or diminishment as he is free of karmas. It is explained as follows: anityatvam dehahāniḥ duḥkhaprāptirapūrṇatā | nāśaścaturvidhaḥ proktaḥ tadabhāvo hareḥ sadā | tadanyeṣāṁ tu sarveṣāṁ nāśāḥ kecidbhavanti hi || Meaning: Association with a temporary body (ie, birth), relinquishing the body (ie, death), acquisition of sorrow, incompleteness (ie, contraction of DBJ) are four kinds of loss or destruction, ie, modification on account of karmas. Sri Hari does not have any of these. All the others (in samsAra) have some kind of loss/destruction/modification(at varying times). This slOka is an upabrahmaNa for “atO anyAd ArtaM” which says that unlike paramAtma, all jIvAs (except those in moksha) are in misery/undergoing modifications on account of karma. So “anitya” cannot be interpreted as “destruction of self” referring to prakrti; all terms refer to baddha jIvAs only. “nAsha” means loss or destruction. It also means modification on account of karmas. “anitya” – The term “anitya” refers to that which is not eternal, ie, perishable. Thus, “anitya” means the “body” made of matter which is temporary. Since jIvAs despite being eternal are inseparably associated with perishable bodies in samsAra, the embodied jIva is designated “anitya” in much the same way as a jIva with the body of “Jack” is called “Jack”, though the characteristics of “Jack” only belong to the body. The self, in association with the body termed “Jack”, is also called “Jack” on account of inseparability.Thus, “anitya’ refers to the baddha jIva in association with the anitya body upon birth. “dehahAniH” – After association with a body, comes the act of giving up the body, which is death. “hAni” means giving up or relinquishing here. “dukha prApti” – self explanatory. Repeated transmigration leads to accumulation of more sorrow due to attachments and karmas. “apUrNatA” – jIvAs in samsAra who are suffering on account of karma, have contracted dharma-bhUtajnAna and hence are “apUrNaM”. All the jIvAs in samsAra have these 4 kinds of loss at varying times, ie, some are being born, some are dying, some are experiencing sorrow when they are not experiencing the temporary joys available in this world and all of them have contracted DBJ in varying degrees. The 4 factors are called losses, as each contribute to loss or non-cognizance/forgetfulness of the essential nature. Interpreting “nAsha” as “loss” means that the jIva loses its’ essential nature of seshatva in samsAra on account of karmas causing these 4 kinds of undesirable states. Whereas, paramAtma does not ever suffer loss of his essential nature of seshitva. If we interpret “nAsha” as “destruction” here, it means “4 kinds of destruction of one’s true nature”. Of course, jIva svarUpa is indestructible, so “destruction” is to be taken metaphorically, meaning, the jIva in samsAra acts in a way completely

opposite to its’ true nature (seshatva). srI pillai lOkAchArya has mentioned that not acting in accordance to your essential nature of seshatva is “Atma nAsha” (metaphorically) in his works. Alternatively, “nAsha” or “destruction” can be taken as “modification on account of karma”. Either way, it all yields the same meaning. Thus, the sloka only talks about the kinds of losses *arising from karma* in samsAra which Sri Hari does not have. This is clear from the comparison with *others*, who are jIvAs *in samsAra*. The jIvAs are undergoing these on account of karma unlike the Lord. “dehahANi” only refers to the death of the baddha jIva which gives up the body. The sloka simply clarifies that the Lord does not undergo such transmigration as he is free of karmas. He might enter and leave bodies during his avatArAs, but that is by his own will, for sport. Obviously, the above slOka references only the existence of jIvAs in samsAra for comparison with the Lord, for even muktas are free of these 4 types of loss but are not mentioned here (“apUrNatA” signifies contraction of DBJ, the expansion of which happens upon moksha, so it can be said muktAs are indeed “purNam”). The intent of the above slOka is only to show that the Lord is free of the effects of karma unlike samsArIs. In a similar vein, the shAstra declares – “All dependence on others is painful. All self-dependence is happiness (Ma. 4: 160)” --- we cannot conclude therefore that we are independent. The implication of this shAstra vAkya is that all dependence on anything but srI hari who is our self, is painful. Similarly, the implication of the varAha purANa slOka is this – jIvAs undergo these types of loss on account of karma. But the Lord does not undergo any of these kinds of loss due to karma. He remains avikAra and he is free of karma. The Lord is born and associated with bodies during his avatArAs.Heexhibits “loss of body”when vandals destroy temples, or sometimes when he finishes his vibhava leela. He exhibits “sorrow” as srI rAma. He exhibits so-called “ignorance” sometimes during his avatArAs. But none of these are due to karma, they occur due to his will and he remains unchanged, blissful and omniscient at all times. In the same way as Rama was sad when Sita was abducted, Lord’s body is “destroyed” in Archa avatAra. But he does not suffer any of these*because of karma* or by factors beyond his will. But he can play-act by his own will. It is his sport. Look at what the vishNu purANa says: arjunOpi tadAnvIkshya rAmakrshNakalevarE | samskAraM lambhayAmAsa tathAnyeshAmanukramAt || (~vishNu purANa 5.38.1) Meaning: Arjuna having found the bodies of Krishńa and of Ráma, performed for them, and the rest of the slain, the obsequial rites…

The vishNu purANa says that the Lord left his body and ascended to sri vaikuntha, and Arjuna performed the last rites. Does this mean Lord is mortal then? No. When Rama was sad, he was not sad because of karma but by his own will. When krishNa’s body was cremated or when the archa forms undergo “harm”, it doesn’t mean the Lord is literally suffering effects of karma which caused him bodily harm, or that he feels pain and suffering. It is his sport, simple. The whole purpose of archAvatAra is to reverse everything – he who is independent, satisfied at all times and all-powerful seemingly becomes dependent, needy and powerless. Thus, he does not do anything when vandals try to destroy temples, etc. Slokas such as the quoted varAha purANa are clarifying the Lord to be akhilahEyapratyanIka and apahatapApma at all times, which is not violated anywhere by what he does(eg cremation in vishNu purANa, temple attacks by vandals) as everything happens by his will and not by karma. Technically, vandals have not destroyed the pure Agamic temples consecrated in the proper manner so far, even going by history. Most of the temples destroyed belonged to anya-devatas or did not have proper consecration. It might be his sankalpa. PP: What is worse, the ordinary jīva after going to mokṣa, eventually gets free from bodilydestruction. However Sri Hari is eternally afflicted by this kind of bodily destruction. Thus in this aspect Sri Hari worse off than ordinary jīva!! SD: Inanity. The Lord is everywhere by his will. As antarAtma of jagat, he remains as indweller of jagat even we go to moksha. Does that mean the antarAtma is “eternally afflicted”? As he is not affected by karma, he is not affected even if he remains in samsAra. Even so, indeed, this shows his infinite mercy and compassion in being willing to stay among us. This is a kalyANa guNa that confers Ananda for us, worthy of meditation, it is not a dOSha! The “bodily destruction” as you put it, happens by his will and not out of karma. Thus, there is no suffering. He does not associate with the body out of force, but by his own will. This should be amply clear now. PP: Only Mula vigrahas in the temples are avatāras of the Lord or utsava vigrahas also avatāras of the Lord? Are both kinds made of śuddha sattva or only the Mula vigrahas are made of śuddha sattva? What about the vigrahas that the devotees keep in their pūjā rooms? If people say "No, the vigrahas in the homes of the devotees are not avatāras of the Lord and so not śuddha satva", then they can contend that by protesting "regarding the thirumeni of the Lord in my pUja room as prakritic is a great sin." SD: Any body of the Lord consecrated by pAncharAtra/vaikhAnasa Agama is suddha sattva. Mula vigraha and utsava vigrahas are all suddha sattva. Puja rooms – depends on whether you used the Agama, otherwise it is a mere representation of the Lord out of respect and not suddha sattva.

PP: Why is the vigraha śuddha satvam - their argument is that it is so because the vigraha is śarIra of the Brahman and His śarIra has to be śuddha satvam. If that is their argument, they argue that this entire universe is śarIra of Brahman. So, this entire universe must be śuddha satva according to them.If the śarIra of Brahman has to be śuddha satva, then as per them the jīva is śarIra of Brahman and so the jīva must be śuddha satva, meaning the jīva must be jaḍa according to them. SD: Again betrays a poor understanding of Vishishtadvaita. Shruti says everything is a body of the Lord, not just suddha sattva. Something doesn’t have to be suddha sattva to be his body. Lord associates with jIvAs and jagat as his bodies to sustain them, as they cannot exist without being his bodies (though he can exist without them). The Lord associates with suddha sattva bodies to exhibit his kalyANa guNas to the jIvAs --- these are the bodies that the shAstra terms “adityavarNaM” etc. He can again exist without these bodies as divyAtma svarUpa, and such a meditation is prescribed in the vishNu purANa. He has the prakrti as his body, jIvAs as his body, suddha sattva srI vaikunta as his body, his own form of suddha sattva as his body and so on. Is there a limit to the number of bodies he can have? But of course, the function of differentbodies is different. There are two types of prakrti – suddha sattva and Mishra sattva. Suddha sattva assri vaikunta and his own auspicious forms constitute his body. Mishra sattva which is the jagat constitutes his body. PP: Difference is an inherent nature of an attribute itself. That is what is called viśeṣa. SD: Inseparability is the inherent nature of an attribute, and hence it is different from the substance. For an entity that is inseparable to another is different from it. There is no “non-difference of substance and attribute, lord and his body”. ON THE NATURE OF ENJOYMENT OF BLISS PP: Only Viṣṇu is independent. The liberated ātma enjoys its bliss through Bhagavān Viṣṇu, but as per its own yogyata only. There is no question of enjoying themselves. SD: As proven already, every jIvA is the body of Brahman and by virtue of that, its’ sesha. Thus, the yogyata for all is the same. His kalyANaguNAs are infinite, our DBJ is infinite, thus experience of the infinite guNAs result in infinite Ananda. PP: It is very important to understand that be it Bhakti or Prapatti, they are all tools for jñāna. The mokṣa comes only thru jñāna. The true jñāna will lead to proper bhakti and prapatti, etc. There is no objection to Bhakti or Prapatti, etc. The problem is if one claims that there is no need for jñāna; prapatti alone is sufficient to get mokṣa, that is objected to….So Bhakti or Prapatti without jñāna will not lead to mokṣa. SD: Both bhakti and prapatti are “jnAna-viSeshaNa” only. In fact, they are the anuShtANa of jnAna. There is nothing like “ajnAna bhakti/prapatti”.

PP: Please consider the following Equal Ananda of muktas compared to God. – S1 Jiva has equal status to Brahman. - S2 If S1 is followed, then it means that S2 is true. - S3 Mādhvas assert S3. - S4 This is against śāstras. - S5 Let us analyze the above claim of Viśiṣṭādvaita. What is meant by S2? What does “This” in S5 refer to? If “This” refers to S2, then what is S2? Where is the support for this kind of assertion? What is the issue Viśiṣṭādvaita is facing? If it does not agree to S2 and it has problem with S3, then it is not the question of śāstra here, but it is a question of inference here. Further Madhvas need neither S2 nor S3 to reject S1. There is plenty of scope to reject S1 by itself using scriptural support. If by “status”, “status of bliss” is meant, then S1 and S2 become synonymous and S3 becomes trivially true. There is no need for S4 at all. Madhvas reject S1 without going for S2, S3 or S4. If by “status”, “position or power” is meant, even then Madhvas reject S1 without going for S2, S3 or S4. There is no need for S2, S3 and S4 to reject S1. COMMENT: Are the purvapaxins just doing anuvada of the Dvaita side? SD: I am not going to compare S1, S2, etc by looking at the computer screen; it is too tedious and the argument of the pUrvapakShin is badly phrased. I will just point out one thing which popped out of that curious diatribe: “Equal Status” Nowhere does Vishishtadvaita claim equal status of jIvA with Brahman. There is equality of Ananda which does not translate to equality of “status”. This I believe was a mistaken position first taken by vyAsatIrtha in his “Candrika”. PP: The reasons for jīva not having equal ananda arises from scriptures itself. Also that is the most logical thing. Not only that, creation, maintenance, destruction, control, giving knowledge, ignorance, bondage, liberation are additional tasks.

So, the Lord does all this and gets certain Ananda. Then the mukta jīva does not do any of these, but still gets same Ananda as Brahman. This is like saying one person toils day and night and gets a salary of million dollars. Another one does not do anything, but still gets a million dollars. Then the situation of the latter is much better than the former. Is it not? That is weird too. COMMENT: Are the purvapaxins just doing anuvada of the Dvaita side? SD: Witty comment (not!). The equality of Ananda arises by – 1) serving the Lord, 2) seeing his happiness, 3) Using the infinite DBJ in moksha to experience the attributes of the Lord such as creation, maintenance, destruction, control, giving knowledge, ignorance, bondage, liberation etc. Just as a wife enjoys the qualities of her husband, and the husband enjoys the same qualities (which are his own), similarly, paramAtma derives ananda from doing these activities and the jIvA derives ananda from these activities undertaken by paramAtma, which are but different auspicious attributes of his. Your analogy is almost correct. What we do for sAdhana is insignificant compared to the mercy of the Lord. He gives us so much for so little! This is a kalyANa guNA of his, not a doSha. Thus the shAstras say do not show ego in your self-effort, your sAdhana is nothing but an alpa-vyAja (excuse) for him to shower his grace to retain his impartiality. Sri Vaikunta cannot be earned by your efforts, but by his grace, which uses your efforts as an excuse.This is a concept that requires an understanding of bhakti yOga/prapatti, etc, so not going into it here. PP: That goes against the following pramāṇa-s. OM sampadyāvihāya svena śabdāt OM Having reached Parabrahman, the jñāni, without leaving Him(the Lord), by His own inherent self, enjoys the bliss - thus proclaim the śrutis. SD: Wrong. The sUtra means: “(On the self’s) having approached (the highest light), there is manifestation; (as we infer) from the word “own”. This is a reference to the ChandOgya vAkya “param jyotir upasampadya svEna rUpena”. “svEna” in that sUtra refers to a manifestation of the self’s own form. What is the own form of the self? It is the manifestation of the self in the form of being characterized by the8 fold attributes of apahatapApma, vijAra, vishoka, etc. The loss of karma means an expansion of DBJ, which indeed allows the self to enjoy bliss – the bliss of Brahman which is unlimited (sa ekO brahmaNa AnandaH; Anandam brahmaNo vidvAn). The word “svEna” here rejects the idea that the self, upon liberation, produces a condition that is new to it, which it did not previously have. So, the word indicates that the self manifests its’ “own” form, a natural condition of being characterized as free of evil, knowledge etc. This condition is not something

new like a self acquiring a deva body, etc, but it is a natural condition being a manifestation of what was only obscured in samsAra by karmas (note that even in samsAra, the essential nature of the self is unchanging, karmas only affect the DBJ). shrI rAmAnuja quotes Saunaka Muni (from vishNu dharma) as proof of the explanation for this sUtra, which also indicates the DBJ expanding with the manifestation of the 8-fold attributes that constitute the self’s own form: “yathA na kriyatE jyotsnA malaprakShAlanAt manEh| doSha prahANat na jnAnaM AtmanaH kriyatE tathA….” (~vishNu dharma 104.55-56, quoted in srI bhAshya) Meaning: As the lustre of the gem is not created by the act of polishing, so the own intelligence (DBJ) of the Self is not created by the putting off of imperfections. As the well is not the cause of the production of rain water, but only serves to manifest water which already exists—for whence should that originate which is not?—thus knowledge and the other attributes of the Self are only manifested through the putting off of evil qualities; they are not produced, for they are eternal. So, the idea of using “svEna” in a nutshell, is to emphasize that the knowledgeand other attributes of the self which were obscured and contracted by karmas, expand and thus manifest themselves after the cessation of bondage and as the self approaches the highest light – they are not newly produced, for they are eternal. The qualities which were already existing, now assert themselves and thus it is a manifestation of what already exists, rather than origination. It does not mean, the self enjoys bliss “limited to its’ own nature” or “enjoys the Lord in a limited manner through his own inherent nature” as the author assumes. “sabdAt” in the sUtra doesn’t refer to “shrutis” here, but to the word “svEna” which is the topic under discussion. PP: muktirhitvā anyathā rūpam svarūpena vyavasthitiḥ | - Bhāgavata 2-10-6 The mukti is nothing but forsaking what is not inherent and enjoying one's own inherent nature (without forsaking the Lord). SD: So what? What is not inherent to one’s nature is assuming oneself as independent. What is inherent or one’s nature is seshatva or servitude to the Lord. Service to the Lord is mukti. PP:adyathaitānyamuṣmādākāśātsamutthāya paraṁ jyotirupasaṁpadya svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyante || Chāndogya - 8-12-2 Just like the four Vāyu, Brahma, Bhārati and Sarasvati, the jīva forsakes his body by the grace of the Lord, reaches the Paramjyoti Paramātma and attains svarūpAnanda āvirbhāva". SD: That interpretation is wrong. It doesn’t refer to deities at all but to natural elements. The idea is, analogy is provided to show how the self manifests its’ true form in moksha. So, the context does not support interpreting it randomly as deities and pouncing on the word “vAyu” wherever it occurs just

because the opponent revers the devata in his tradition. Neither does “svarUpAnanda AvirbhAva” compute. Here is the correct interpretation: asharIro vAyurabhraM tadyathaitAnyamuShmAdAkAshAtsamutthAya paraM rUpeNAbhiniShpadyante || (Chandogya Upanishad ~ 8.12.2)

vidyutstanayitnurasharIrANyetAni jyotirupasampadya svena

Meaning: Vayu has no body; cloud (abhraM), lightening and thunder have no bodies. Just as these arise from this Akasha and having arisen attaining the state of the causal source, shine out in their natural form, similarly this Atman rises above this body and attaining that Supreme Light reveals itself in its’ own natural form. vAyu is mentioned together with cloud, lightening etc and thus is elemental vAyu, not the deity. Vayu, cloud, etc have no body of the form of head, limbs, etc. Abhra, Megha Vidyuth, etc are all different states. They arise from Akasha, the cause. Their arising means they flourish above for performing their respective functions. These are set to attain the “paraMjyoti” – the meaning of this is as follows – “para” signifies the causal state of even vAyu and others. “Jyothi” means the capability of the causal state for manifesting these effects. The vAyu and others reach their “kAraNa dravyaM” by giving up their “kAryavastha”. They will be in that state characterized with a form similar to the form of ther cause. vAyu which had particular functions to do gives up all those forms and remains mere vAyu similar to its’ source – the Akasha. So, according to this analogy, the jIvAtma who is in the state of samsAra, goes through a particular path, reaches the Supreme Brahman in a particular place and by giving up his state of “samsAravastha” and manifests himself in a form similar to paramAtman. The term “manifests”, ie, “abhiniShpadyantE svEna rUpEna” points out that in the state of release he does not have any new form, but manifests in his own natural form. The nature of manifestation of the jIvAtma in the state of liberation is determined by the sUtra “sampadya AvirbhAva: svEna sabdhAth” (VS 4.4.1) – the “samprasAd” signifies the jIvAtma. “asmAth sharIrath samuthAya” – means moving out of the final body through the mUrdhanya nAdi for going through the path of archirAdi and attaining Brahman. “paraMjyoti” means the Supreme Brahman who is adoring the Supreme Abode of Sri Vaikuntha. “upasampadya” means attaining or reaching. “svEna rUpEna” – the manifestation of the 8 qualities of apahatapApma (freedom from sin), vijara (freedom from age), vimRtyu, (freedom from death), viSoka (freedom from sorrow), vijigIsa (freedom from hunger), avipASa (freedom from thirst), satyakAma (desires are true) and satyasankalpa (whose will is true). In the sUtra “evaM upanyAsAth pUrvabhAvAth avirodha bAdarAyaNa” (VS 4.4.7), it is established that the liberated Atman is of the nature of consciousness/knowledge and manifests these 8 qualities along with his essential nature, which is seshatva-jnAna. “Svena jyOti upasampadya” thus refers to manifesting the 8 fold qualities.

PP: They should have atleast read the commentary of their own Acharya. While commenting on the verse 15-16 of Gīta, Sri Rāmānuja says akṣaraśabdanirdiṣṭaḥ kūṭasthaḥ acitsaṁsargaviyuktaḥ svena rūpeṇa avasthito muktātmā | Rāmānujabhāṣya for Gītā 15-16 The liberated soul, termed as akṣara, is also termed as kūṭastha, for having no contact with insentient, remains in its own form. (enjoying his own bliss, even though controlled by Paramātma)." The jīva enjoys the bliss thru the Lord - the bimba-pratibimba bhāva continues even in mokṣa. The jīva does not enjoy the bliss of the Lord. One must be careful in using proper expression. SD: The pUrvapakSin should have atleast understood what AchArya means by “svEna rUpENa” rather than imagining it meant that AchArya rAmAnuja was validiating their own concocted theories of BimbaPratibimba. It means manifesting the 8-fold qualities and this is mentioned by srI rAmAnuja himself in the srI bhAshya as well as by srI vedAnta desikan in tAtparya chandrika. PP: There is no scriptural statement that supports "dharmabhūta- jñāna" (DBJ). Further there is no scriptural statement that speaks of its expansion. Much less is the scope for "infinite expansion". SD: O Really, Genius? Just because you blunder into shAstra and interpret things wildly out of context (“ahaM” as the Lord, “neha nAnAsti kincana” as Lord being identical to his limbs etc) without regard for the actual intent of usage, doesn’t mean the actual meanings are not present. Grammatical correctness needs to be supplemented with contextual accuracy. One can have a shAstric pramANa and grammatical legitimacy for “ahaM” denoting the Lord, for instance, but it doesn’t mean it should be used everywhere “ahaM” occurs, but only at specific locations where it is warranted. dharma bhUta jnAna is self proven for a sentient entity as it is necessary for cognition of external things.svarUpa jnAna is mere svayaM prakAshatva or “I-ness”. It is not “I know this”. DBJ is selfevident.Basically, no entity can function without DBJ. Why is the jIva similar to acit during praLaya? Is it a change of jIva svarUpa? No. It is because the DBJ is contracted to nil, with the only thing differentiating cit and acit being the svarUpa jnAna of “I-ness”, which acit does not feel and thus they appear almost indistinguishable. Nonetheless, here are pramANas. Firstly, a smriti statement that supports DBJ. Quoting Saunaka Muni: “yathA na kriyatE jyotsnA malaprakShAlanAt manEh| doSha prahANat na jnAnaM AtmanaH kriyatE tathA….” (~vishNu dharma 104.55-56, quoted in srI bhAshya) Meaning: “As the lustre of the gem is not created by the act of polishing, so the own intelligence (DBJ) of the Self is not created by the putting off of imperfections. As the well is not the cause of the production of rain water, but only serves to manifest water which already exists—for whence should

that originate which is not?Thus knowledge and the other attributes of the Self are only manifested through the putting off of evil qualities; they are not produced, for they are eternal” Since the intelligence is compared to lustre of the gem, it is an attribute, just as luster is an attribute of the gem. “Attributive jnAna” is “dharma bhUta jnAna”, different from svarUpa jnAna. It has already been established that a substance is different from its’ attribute. So, all jIvAs have the same svarUpa, since “gem” is in singular indicating a class of identical beings. All have attributive knowledge which is the luster. Now, other pramANAs which clearly state the existence and expansion of DBJ: eSha hi draShTa spraShTA shrotA ghrAtA rasayitA manta boddhA kartA vij~nAnAtmA puruShaH | sa pare.akShara Atmani sampratiShThate || (~PrashnOpanishad) Meaning: This individual self (puruSha) which is of the nature of knowledge (vijnAnAtma) is verily the seer, the feeler, the hearer, the smeller, the taster, the thinker, the knower (boddha) and the doer. He becomes established in the immutable supreme self. The 2 different words used in the above statement “vijnAnAtma” and “boddha” – both connoting knowledge – are used to signify that the self is not only of the nature of knowledge, but also has knowledge as its’ attribute (DBJ). yo.ayaM vij~nAnamayaH prANeShu hR^idyantarjyotiH puruShaH ~ BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad (4-37) Meaning: This Purusha (individual self) who is in the midst of the indrIyAs, who is the light within the heart and who is characterized by vijnAna or dharma-bhUta-jnAna… The term “jyOti” signifies that the jIva is of the nature of knowledge (svarUpa jnAna) whereas the term “vijnAna maya:”signifies that the svarUpa of the Atma is characterized by vijnAna or DBJ and is thus different from its’ DBJ. As in the case of the prashnOpanishad, two different terms are used. Just as the Sun, who is of the nature of tejas, illumines through its’ luminosity (prabha), the jIva, of the nature of knowledge, illumines through the dharma-bhUta-jnAna. ”puruSha” here refers to the jIva and not paramAtma here. This is clear from the succeeding mantra which immediately says this puruSha is associated with a sharIra and birth/death, etc. The Chandogya says: sarvaM ha pashyaH pashyati sarvamApnoti (7-26-2) “He sees all” refers to omniscience. As svarUpa is aNu, it can only be said that with expanded DBJ, he is omniscient, which only implies infinitely expanded DBJ. “sarvaM” does not refer to the Lord here, but “everything/all” implying omniscience. This is explained in another section of this document. The svEtAsvatara Upanishad (5.8-9) also says that the jIva has DBJ and it can become infinite as follows:

aNguShThamAtro ravitulyarUpaH sa~NkalpAha~NkArasamanvito yaH | buddherguNenAtmaguNena chaiva ArAgramAtro.apyaparo.api dR^iShTaH || (Sve. Up 5-8) Meaning: The jIvAtman who is associated with will and selfishness that are caused by the qualities of the intellect and the decision of the attributive knowledge (DBJ) of the Atman, who has a form similar to that of the Sun – is seen in the shAstra as having the size of a thumb. It is seen in the shAstra that he is of even a lesser proportion, viz., having the proportion of the point of a goad. Typically, the author will jump to conclusions that this refers to paramAtma. Not so. This mantra refers to the jIvAtma and not the paramAtma. The nature of paramAtma was taught by the Upanishad from 51 to 5-6. The mantras from 5-7 to 5-12 then describe the nature of the jIvAtma. Then, 5-13 and 5-14 again describe the paramAtma and declare that in such a way, he is to be known as different from the jIva to attain liberation. Thus, there is no scope for interpreting 5-7 and 5-8 till 5-12 as referring to paramAtma just because there is a reference to “size of a thumb” due to context declaring otherwise. Now, for the explanation. The size of a thumb is mentioned here not because that is the true size of the atomic jIvAtma, but because it is the size of the heart where he resides. Though the jIva is localized in some point of the heart on account of being aNu, he pervades the cave of the heart by his attributive knowledge or dharma-bhUta-jnAna, signified by the word “AtmaguNa”. He is of lesser proportion also as seen in the bodies of mosquitoes, ants and others. He is atomic in size and this size does not change at any time. Buddhi is “antaH karaNa” and the guNas of buddhi are sattva, rajas and tamas. “AtmaguNa” thus refers to the various kinds of decisions formed as related to different objects, with these decisions being different aspects of the dharma-bhUta-jnAna (AtmadharmabhUta nAnAvidhArthavishayakAdyavasAyEna yukta:). The sankalpa or will is the result of such decisions and the ahamkAra or egotism is also the result of such decisions. Then, having elaborated the fact that the jIva resides in the heart and pervades it by its’ DBJ, the next mantra (5-9) describes the size of the jIva as follows: bAlAgrashatabhAgasya shatadhA kalpitasya cha | bhAgo jIvaH sa vij~neyaH sa chAnantyAya kalpate || (~Sve Up. 5-9) Meaning: The proportion of the jIva is to be known as equal to one hundredth part of the one hundredth part of the tip of the hair. He, verily becomes capable of attaining infinity (DBJ). The size of the jIvAtma is described here. In the state of liberation, this very atomic jIva is able to gain infinity of the form of all-pervading knowledge which is through the extension of his dharma-bhUtajnAna. Before we progress to other pramANAs, we need to take a detour. “anantAya kalpatE” does not mean infinite numbers of jIvas (as the Gaudiyas interpret it) because the jIva described in the singular itself refers to a class of jIvAs, as “rice” refers to several identical rice grains. The mantras are describing the nature of the jIva to distinguish it from paramAtma and thus, jIvaparamAtma bhEda and plurality of jIvAs is self-established.

Now, the author takes this mantra quite bizarrely as referring to the Lord, by giving the following explanation on his website (https://sites.google.com/site/madhwaprameyaqa/home/kesavarao). Let me quote the quite incongruent explanation of the author in red and my answer below: Before jumping to the conclusion that the translation (of the svetAsvatAra) is correct and it describes jIva, let me quote another sentence from the shruti "jivAdbhavanti bhUtAnijive tishhThantyachanchalaH | jive ca layam ichchhantina jivAtkAraNaM param.h ||"" All the living beings originate from Jiva. They subsist/exist in JIva. They finally get laya into the JIva. There is no primordial cause other than JIva. "It is quite evident that any ordinary being (jIva) cannot have such power. Then how do we resolvethis? The shruti itself gives us the solution. "Adau ante cha madhye cha hariH sarvatra gIyate"."In the beginning, at the end and in the middle, Lord Hari is extolled everywhere. ""nAmAni sarvAni yamAvishantitaM vai vishhNuM paramamudAharanti |"" All the names describe and extoll Lord Vishnu only in the primary sense." The same Shvetashvataropanishad says :"ANoraNIyAn.h mahato mahIyAnAtmA guhAyAM nihito.asya jantoH". "He is smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest and resides in the cave of heart of each jIva." Theauthor wants to take the “jIva” described as “anantAya kalpatE” as referring to the Lord, who is aNu within the jIva and infinite. Talk about mangling the shAstra to force one’s absurd interpretations. Unfortunately for him, this nyAya is not applicable because: 1) In the shruti vAkyaquoted by the author, the jIva is described to be the creator and destroyer of the jagat. Thus, as it is well known that jIva is not the creator and destroyer, the term “jIva” is taken as paramAtma who is the antaryAmin of the jIva. Or, the name “jIva” can be interpreted etymologically as referring to Brahman. It is similar to statements like “AkASha” is the creator of all, where it is well-known that the elemental AkASha is not the creator. Similarly, statements like “he is smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest” also clearly show it is paramAtma who is being talked about, as opposed to the jIva. 2) The nyAya that all names can be taken as that of the Lord is applicable thus only if it is conclusively proven that the attributes in the context correspond to the Supreme Being. That is indicated in the brahma sUtrAs itself. When “agni” is described as “sarvAntarAtma, jagatkAraNa”, it can be taken as referring to the Lord. However, when shruti says “Agni burns”,

it can only be taken as elemental fire. Similarly, the context of describing the jIva as “hundredth part of a hair”, etc establishes that it is talking about the individual self. 3) Furthermore, the usage of “anantAya kalpatE” is also not a guNa of the Lord, for it means the jIva is capable of infinity, indicating a potential to be infinite in some way, which again indicates that he is not always exactly in that state (especially when he is residing in the heart, ie, in samsAra as per the previous mantra and associated with bodies due to karma as per the succeeding mantra). Whereas, the Lord cannot be “potentially or capable of being infinite”, as he is verily ever infinite even when he is subtle (aNu) pervading the jIva. It cannot be said “Lord is aNu, and is capable of being infinite”, for “infinity” is the quality of being unlimited by time, space and vastu, which he is even while he is aNu – that is his agaTitagaTana sAmarthyaM (quality of reconciling opposites). His very quality of being unlimited is the reason for him being also within the aNu jIva, thus it makes no sense to say “anantAya kalpatE” for the Lord. The word “kalpatE” is not only not needed for him, but is also contrary to him. 4) The Lord being “aNu” can never be described in the fashion of “he is the hundredth part of a hair”. That description applies to an entity, ie, the jIva, that truly is in that manner (ie, hundredth part of a hair) at all times, all places and all states. The Lord while being inside the jIva, is not actually aNu by svarUpa. Thus, any description of the Lord as aNu will only be conveyed by statements such as “he is smaller than the smallest, bigger than the biggest, resides as the subtle being within the subtle jIva” which clarifies he is the great one at all times who is dwelling within the subtle jIva. The pervasion of the Lord will not be described by elaborating an approximation of the exact size (hundredth part, etc), which is obviously a permanent characteristic describing the entity. 5) If in response to 4), it is argued further that the Lord is described as “puruSha, size of a thumb” elsewhere and hence can be described as “hundredth part of a hair”, then it is easily countered by the fact that the size of the thumb is the heart, which is the location of the puruSha, which is a permanent size for the heart and thus the Lord has assumed that size as well. Furthermore, the descriptions of the puruSha when used for the Lord always leave no room for doubt that it is paramAtma, as the same “size of a thumb”applies to the jIva as well (in Sve Up 5-8) whereas the descriptions here (Sve Up 5-9) merely say that the entity jIva is aNu and becomes capable of infinity (implying it is not always so), neither of which are qualities of the Lord (who is always infinite). 6) The context of the svEtAsvatAra Upanishad clearly establishes that it is the jIvAtma that is being talked about. The qualities given are that of aNutva, a capability/potential of infinity and of course, the fact that the jIva, being devoid of gender, is identified with the body he assumes in the very next mantra as follows: naiva strii na pumaaneshha na chaivaaya.n napu.nsakaH . yadyachchhariiramaadatte tene tene sa yujyate

Which clearly describes the individual self, that is devoid of gender by nature, as assuming bodies on account of karma and identifying with the gender. To this, the author further replies in his inimitably bizarre manner, The Anutva applies to the Lord and also Jiva. The non-presence or absence of gender applies to the Lord only. So basically, he is saying we can divide the sentences as per our whims. He splits the first mantra into two halves - “aNu” applies to both Lord and Jiva, “anantAya kalpatE” applies to the Lord. Then he splits the second mantra into two halves - absence of gender applies to the Lord, and the statement of “whatever body he assumes, he becomes identified with that” applies to the jIva. Using basic common sense, does this even have an iota of logic in it? Where is the rationale in splitting single contextual statements? We can only divide shruti/smriti statements in the following ways: -

-

-

Statements that describe only jIva – eg: jIva is aNu, has karma, etc Statements that describe only Ishvara – eg: Lord is sarvAntarAtma, etc Statements that either describe Ishvara, who is the inner self or the jIva who is his body singly. Eg: “ParamAtma is transmigrating in samsAra” means the paramAtma as the inner self of the Jiva that is his body, is transmigrating in samsAra. Here, the attributes apply only to jIva and paramAtma is named by sAmAnAdhikaraNya andsharIrAtma bhAva. Or, “the jIva is the creator and destroyer”, which mean “the paramAtma, who is the inner self of jIva, is the creator and destroyer”. Here, the attributes apply only to paramAtma and jIva is named by sAmAnAdhikaraNya and sharIrAtma bhAva. Statements that describe Ishvara, who is the inner self with the jIva as his body dually (and thus the descriptions apply to both) – eg: “sarvO vai rudrO” – When taken as Rudra devata, it means “Rudra is jagat-nirvAhaka (Sarva) as he is the destroyer”. As paramAtma is antaryAmin of Rudra and the latter is his sharIra, this statement can also mean “Narayana (who is etymologically “Rudra” or who has Rudra devata as his body) is Sarva or the jagat-kAraNa”. Statements that describe only Ishvara, who acts through the jIva that is his sharIra and AvEsha rUpa, eg: krishNa says “I create and destroy (through brahma and rudra)”, bhagavAta purANa also has a shiva stuti where qualities of paramAtma are praised by addressing Rudra deva.

The above are all accepted. There is however, no logic or sense in splitting two simple statements into four halves by claiming aNutva describes both Lord and jIva, “anantAya kalpatE” describes the Lord, genderlessness describes the Lord and the association/identification of bodies describes the jIva. What a mess! The non-presence or absence of gender applies to the Lord only. HarikathAmritasAra (vyAptisandhi, 2nd verse), the same thought about the absence of gender to the Lord goes as:

"strI napumsaka purushha bhU salilAnalAnila gagana mana shashi |bhAnu kAla guNa prakR^itiyoLagondu tAnalla |" "He is none of these - Female, neuter, male, earth, water,fire, wind, sky, mind, moon, sun, time, quality, nature, etc." He is beyond everything and controls everything. Of course, the Lord isgenderless. But so is the jIva and to show that it is talking about the jIva and not paramAtma, the shruti specifically says “yadyachchhariiramaadatte tene tene sa yujyate” – that body which is assumed on account of karma, the individual self gets that gender, etc on account of identification/association with the body. As mentioned earlier, the statement cannot be split as half applying to the Lord and half applying to the jIva. The latter half of the sentence about assuming bodies is a consequential or explanatory statement of the former, ie, though he is without gender by nature, he assumes bodies and becomes identified with gender on account of that. You have to accept that the entire statement describes either – 1) both jIva and antaryAmin Lord which is impossible as the Lord is not identified with gender on account of bodies, and neither does he assume bodies out of karma or 2) that it describes the Lord alone, which is again impossible due to the same reason, or 3) it describes only the jIva, and this is the correct, unbiased view. If it were talking about the Lord, there would be no need for this clarification, as merely saying Lord is known to be free of all gender, etc is enough. It also cannot be said the Lord gets association with gender on assuming bodies as mohini, krishNa, etc – because even in that state, he is without gender indeed, not undergoing the effects of the genders and those bodies are made of suddha sattva and assumed for sport. The jIva on the other hand, becomes associated with a body, identified with the gender and also undergoes the effects of that gender due to karma. It is the jIva who is often referred to as man, woman, deva, etc and so a doubt may occur as to whether the jIva itself is the gender/race. To dispel dehAtma bhrama, it is clarified that it is all related to the temporary sharIra. If the authorstill chooses to remain blind to these obvious truths, he is unfortunately (for him) contradicted by the following pramANAs: nAyam dEva na martyO vA na tiryak sthAvarOpi vA / j~nAnAnandamayastvAtmA shEShO hi paramAtmanah// ~ (MahAbhArata, AshvamEdhika 43-13) The self is neither god nor man, neither beast nor tree. Its essential nature is knowledge and bliss and it is entirely dependent on the Supreme Being and exists solely for His purposes (shESha). pumAn -na devo na naro na pashur -na pAdapah; sharIrAkrti bhedaas tu bhUpaite karmayonayah (~ vishNu purANa 2.13.98)

This slOka says that all jIva bhEda is due to the different bodies assumed by different jIvAs on the basis of karma. The jIva by nature is not a man, deva, animal, etc. When it is not a man, deva etc, then what to speak of gender, which by implication is not there. The two pramANas are quoted by shrI vedAnta desikan. The first slOka clearly says the jIva is a shEsha of the Lord, with no other designation as god, man, etc (and hence no gender). “karmayonayaH” makes the vishNu purANa slOka clear as well, that “pumAn” here refers to the jIva. In the face of all this, the author flimsily quotes a “pramANa” to show jIvAs have gender in moksha: sa tatra paryeti jakShatkrIDanramamANaH strIbhirvA yAnairvA (Chandogya Up. 8.12.3) Which apparently says there are strI-s in moksha and so implies gender. Why not quote the entire thing and see? sa uttamapuruShaH sa tatra paryeti jakShatkrIDanramamANaH strIbhirvA yAnairvA j~nAtibhirvA nopajana{\m+} smarannida{\m+} sharIra{\m+} sa yathA prayogya AcharaNe yukta evamevAyamasmi~nCharIre prANo yuktaH || (~ Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.3) Meaning: That great luminary to be attained is the Supreme Person – Paramatman. That attainer experiences the paramatman and follows him, eating, sporting with women (ramamANaH), playing, with chariots or with relatives, forgetting his previous body lying amidst the relatives. Just as horses yoked to the chariot are directed by the charioteer, similarly this bound self associated with prANa is yoked on account of his karma. The explanation is thus. The Lord is the uttama puruSha to be attained. The attainer of this Brahman moves with the paramAtman, ie, he serves him everywhere at all times, all states and all places. “upajana na smarana” – The word “upajana” means body – that which is born out of association of man and woman. “upajanaM” can also mean that which is lying in the midst of relatives, ie, dead body (bandhujanAnAM samIpE shayithaM - kuNapaM). He is forgetting this body. Meaning is thus. The statements of sporting with women, eating, playing etc only means the liberated jIva, being omniscient (sarvajna), is experiencing the previous body of his in the state of moksha. How is it so? As he is omniscient, he has this experience of his previous lives. But this experience is not in the same manner as when he was in bondage, ie, he does not experience that body by identifying himself with it (abrahmAtmaka) and he does not experience it in the form of “dukharUpa”. That is implied by the fact that he is forgetting this body, or that it is a dead body. How was he related to the previous body? He was in the state of bondage just like a horse is yoked to a chariot. Now, he is not like that. This illustration establishes that Atman is different and distinct from the body. Thus, there is no gender bhEda.The statement of sporting with women, etc only mean he has cognizance of his previous lives due to sarvaj~natva (more pramANAs for that will be provided later on).

In addition, I am aware dvaitins interpret prANo yuktaH as “mukhyaprANa is the charioteer” or something like that. That is wrong. “prANA” here signifies the bound self which was closely associated with prANa. By aprthak siddhi, when the self is closely and inseparably associated with something, it is referred to by that name. Additionally, this is why the Anandavalli also says “shOtriyasya ca akAmahatasya ca” along with every unit of samsAra Ananda. It is because all those Anandas are also included in the Ananda of a mukta due to him being sarvaj~na, and in a manner that is devoid of the dehAtma bhrama and dukha on account of being free of karmas. That will be discussed elsewhere. That’s all it is. On a related topic, of course, due to assuming many bodies to serve the Lord, the muktas and nityas can assume forms of women, men, children, apsarAs, dvArapAlakas, snake (adi sesha), eagle (garuda), etc. They may form social groups (like families) even to serve paramAtma. But these are mere forms or bodies assumed by them to serve paramAtma in that mood. The same mukta who assumes the form of a woman can also assume another form of a man (controlling the forms by its’ DBJ) and serving the Lord by both forms simultaneously. The Upanishad itself has said “sa ekadhA bhavati etc” – that the mukta can assume infinite number of bodies, so it is foolish to think that just because there are descriptions of women, it implies gender bhEda, as the same jIvAs can assume infinite number of women bodies, men bodies, etc. The jIva is devoid of gender by nature as it is distinct from the suddha sattva bodies it controls in mukti. The worst the author could do to mangle the shAstra further is to claim “anantAya kalpatE” means “he is known to be one-hundredth part of a hair in size and is to be thought of/considered as infinite”. But this again cannot be describing the Lord, for there is no reason “kalpatE” needs to be used in terms of “considering/thinking” of him as infinite, when he is infinite in reality. If it is argued it means he is to be meditated upon as infinite, then “vignj~nEya” itself should have conveyedthat intention. All this is just by the numbers. The reality is, “anantAya kalpatE” means the jIva is capable of becoming infinite in DBJ. No lengthy explanation is required were it not for the obstinacy of the author to be oblivious to facts. Leave aside all arguments and let a neutral look at the mantras from 5.7-5.12 and it will be clear that all of them are describing the jIva only. Context itself proves this. Just because the Lord is the possessor of all names and is spoken of everywhere in the vedas, it doesn’t mean one can interpret vAkyAs like “fire burns” as “lord burns”. Context needs to be taken into account. Of course, statements describing jIva and jagat also have the intent of elucidating the tattvas for attaining the Lord, but that doesn’t mean the Lord is the referent of names when context suggests it is talking about other tattvas. “anantAya kalpatE” thus does not refer to the Lord based on context of the Upanishad and the meaning implied. This is because the Lord is described in 5-1 to 5-6 and will be described as the infinite one (Ananta) who is to be known in 5-13 and 5-14. Thus, as these mantras from 5-7 to 5-12 speak only of the jIva, it is out of context to bring paramAtma into it (and you can’t actually even if you tried to). Additionally, “knowing/attaining the infinite one” is mentioned in 5-13 separately.

Hence, “anantAya kalpatE” references the DBJ which was described in the earlier mantra as “AtmaguNa” and says that this DBJ is capable of expanding infinitely in moksha. So, though the jIva is tiny and aNu, its’ knowledge is capable of becoming all-pervading – this is the correct context. There are upabrahmaNas in the Lakshmi Tantra to support this. The next mantra logically flows by talking about the jIva as not having any gender by nature but acquiring such designations on associating with bodies. Hilariously, the author gives a travesty of an explanation and then claims the following, It is a sad state of affairs that so many translations are floating around, where no thought is given for the appropriateness of the meaning and statements are left in limbo or in ambiguous state. Which basically describes his own interpretations of “neha nAnAsti kinchana”, “anantAya kalpatE” and “na pretya samj~na asti”. He has described himself here. Moving on now, more pramANAs for dharma-bhUta-jnAna. BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad (4-3-23) says: na hi draShTurdR^iShTerviparilopo vidyate.avinAshitvAn na tu tad dvitIyam asti tato.anyadvibhaktaM yatpashyet Meaning: The dharma-bhUta-jnAna of the seer is never lost as it is imperishable. There is verily no second object (separate from him) that he can see. This occurs in the context of suShupti. Basically the question is that though the jIva has the ability of knowledge to see the objects, he does not see them when he is in the state of suShupti. So how can it be said he has the ability to see when he is not seeing? The answer is that the dharma-bhUta-jnAna is eternal and is not lost. That DBJ is present in suShupti, but there is no cognition of objects because there is no second object in that state apart from the Supreme ParamAtma that can be cognized. As the sense organs which are the gateways of the extension of DBJ are withdrawn or cut off, there is no cognition of those objects. When it is said that the knowing/seeing ability of the knower/seer is not lost, it implies that the former is distinct from the knower, being an inseparable attribute. Or, such a question can never arise. Now, as a consequence of the infinitely expanded DBJ, the following happens in moksha: Chandogya says - sa ekadhA bhavati tridhA bhavati pa~nchadhA saptadhA navadhA chaiva punashchaikAdashaH smR^itaH shataM cha dasha chaikashcha sahasrANi cha (7-26-2) He becomes one-fold, many-fold, etc. This statement says the mukta can assume infinite number of bodies in moksha. How can a jIva, who is aNu svarUpa, dwell in multiple bodies? Answer is, he doesn’t. He remains aNu, but pervades these bodies by his DBJ and controls them. This implies again, that DBJ is infinite as otherwise one cannot control infinite bodies. Lastly, what does he do with these bodies and expanded DBJ?

sOsnutE sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipascitA ~ TaittirIya Upanishad The mukta enjoys all auspicious qualities united with Brahman. “kAman” here refers to the auspicious qualities, as the jivA, being of the nature of seshatva, has no other desire in moksha but to experience Brahman by serving him. We serve him, he becomes happy, we see his auspicious attributes and experience Ananda. “sarvAn” means all his guNas, ie, infinite guNas. Infinite DBJ to experience infinite attributes of Brahman leads to infinite Ananda. Unlike the mAdhvas’ interpretation of the Chandogya, sri Vaishnava AchAryAs have declared that statements such as “if he is desirous of women in moksha, he gets women” should not be taken to mean the mukta has such desires. The real and only desire is to serve Brahman, the infinite experience of his auspicious qualities arising from that. But since such a purushArtham is not understood by baddhas, the Upanishad purposely uses loukika examples we understand to show our desires are all fulfilled in moksha. Yet another pramANa is in the Lakshmi Tantra. Here, in chapter 7, Lakshmi first declares how the knowledge of the self gets contracted by prakrti as follows: mAyayA jnAnasankOcha anaiShvaryArtikrayAvyaya: ashaktErNutA rUpE triDhaiva vyapadiShyatE aNu: kinchitkarashravaiva kinchjjashravAyamiyuta (~ Lakshmi Tantra 7.26-27) Meaning: The jIvA’s knowledge (DBJ) becomes contracted/limited through the influence of prakrti known as “mAyA”. His power of action (ie, ability to assume infinite number of bodies, etc) undergoes limitation on account of a lack of “aishvarya” or the wealth which is knowledge of Brahman. Being destitute of “shakti” or ability to undertake the moksha-sAdhaNa (on account of a lack of knowledge), he is finite or “aNu” in form (ie, not manifesting the 8 qualities). He (the baddha) is (thus) characterized by three ways – being finite in form (aNu), limited in his capacity to act (kinchitkAra) and possessing limited knowledge or DBJ (kincijjna). Here, “jnAna sankOcha” refers clearly to limitation/diminutionor contraction of the DBJ on account of prakrti which is termed “mAyA” in the svetAsvatAra. It refers to matter made of triguNas and not Lakshmi, by the way. “aNu” does not refer to finite size of the jIva here. That is self-evident. Rather, “aNu” here is taken as the opposite of the word “Brahman” – the jIva in moksha manifests the form of Brahman consisting of the 8 qualities of apahatapApma, etc. The lack of manifestation of these 8 qualities in samsAra is alluded to by the use of “aNu”. Being contracted in DBJ, he is also limited in his actions, ie, he cannot assume an unlimited amount of bodies, experience unlimited objects of enjoyment (bhagavad kalyANa guNas), etc. Then, in Chapter 13, Lakshmi describes what happens to this jIva upon liberation as follows: ShuddhavidyAsamAyogAt saMkocaM yajjahAtyasou|

tadA pradyotamAno.ayaM sarvato muktabandanaH|| j~nAnakriyAsamAyOgAt sarvavitsarvakR^itsadA| anaNushcApyasaMkocAnmadbhAvAyopapadyatE|| (~Lakshmi Tantra 13.31-32) Meaning: When in consequence ofpure knowledge (of the form of direct perception), the jIva discards its’ limitations (being freed of karmas), then freed from every shackle (in mukti), it illumines or shines (signifying expansion of DBJ). In consequence of the union of jnAna (knowledge) and kriya (execution of that knowledge, ie, anuShtAna), it (upon liberation), becomes omniscient (sarvavith), capable of all actions, ie, assuming infinite bodies and experiencing infinite objects of enjoyment (sarvakrt), and since all fetters have been removed, in acquiring my form (ie, form of the Lord inseparable with Lakshmi) of the 8 attributes of apahatapApma, etc, it is even said to become “anaNu” or that which is not “aNu”, (ie, “Brahman” or great in terms of characteristics). The baddha jIva which is aNu (not manifesting its form of apahatapApma, etc), kinchitkara (not capable of unlimited activities) and kinchijjna (limited knowledge or DBJ) acquires knowledge of the tattvas (jnAna) and executes such knowledge in the form of meditation, sAdhana, etc (kriya). The Harita Samhita says that jnAna and krIya are the two wings of the bird known as jIvAtma, required for liberation. It refutes ideas that mere vAkyArtha jnAna leads to moksha. Then, it finally attains brahma-sAkShAtkAra – direct perception of brahma svarUpa-rUpa-guNa-vibhUti through upAsaNa which is “shuddhavidyA”. Then, such a baddha, upon moksha, becomes Brahman in the vein of “brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati” – it manifests the form of Brahman consisting of the 8 qualities of apahatapApma, etc. This is signified by “anaNu”. It becomes omniscient (sarvavith) on account of its’ DBJ illumining everywhere (pradyota) and is also “sarvakrt” as it is able to control an unlimited number of bodies by its’ jnAna (sa ekadhA bhavati, etc in the Chandogya Upanishad), serve the Lord in an unlimited number of ways and experience unlimited objects of enjoyment (the innumerable auspicious qualities of the Lord). One can take “madbhAva” as Lakshmi’s condition or her antaryAmin’s condition. Both have the 8 attributes of apahatapApma, etc. This is an upabrahmaNam for “sa anantAya kalpatE” in the svEtAsvatAra, which dispels all doubts. One can also say “sarvavith” refers to “sarvaM ha paShyaM paShyati” and “sarvakrt” refers to “sa ekadhA bhavati” in the ChandOgya. There is one more slOka in the Lakshmi Tantra after this, which reteirates the same: yAvannirIkShyatE nAyaM mayA kAruNyavattayA| tAvatsaMkucitj~nAnaH karaNairvishvamIkShatE|| (~Lakshmi Tantra 13.33)

Meaning: As long as it (the jIva) does not have my (Lakshmi’s or her Lord who is inseparable to her) katAkshaM, who am moved out of my pity (compassion for all jIvAs), its’ knowledge (DBJ) continues to be restricted and it experiences the Universe through its’ senses/body. The DBJ is channeled through the sense organs of the body or prakrti sambandha and it is this sambandha, on account of karmas, that is restricting its’ expansion. This much will do for an explanation. The Ahirbudhnya Samhita declares that all beings are “sarvaj~nAs” in their own natural condition and become deprived of knowledge by prakrti made of the triguNas as follows: tat tu vaidyaM payaH prAshya sarvE mAnavamanavAH j~nAnabhraMshaM prapadyantE sarvaj~nAH svata eva tE (~ Ahirbudhnya Samhita 7.61) Meaning: Upon the consumption, ie, experience of that (, ie, objects of enjoyment) which is called “vidyA” as it is prakrti composed of the 3 guNas associated with the 3 types of knowledge, by all beings of the world (sarvE),who are abiding in a body (mAnava) and who are abiding in the mind (manavA), they who are “sarvaj~na” or omniscient in their natural condition (svata), enter into (the condition) of being deprived of knowledge (jnAna-bhramsaM prapadyantE). The triguNAs are connected to three types of knowledge (Gita, 18th chapter) and hence the sense objects made of prakrti comprising the 3 guNas is called “vidyA”. It is “eaten”, ie, experienced by all beings. These beings are those who abide in a body (mAna) which is the vehicleto enjoy the senseobjects, and those who abide in the mind (mana) that causes experience of the sense objects. The mention of “abiding” is to indicate that they are inclined towards experience of sense objects, ie, they identify with the body (dehAtma-bhrama) and are slaves to their minds. And by doing so, they become deprived of the discriminatory knowledge despite being omniscient in their original condition. Atmano bhUtibhEdAstE sarvaj~nAH sarvatOmukhAH BhagavacchaktimayyaivaM mandatIvrAdibhAvayA tattatsudarshanonmeShanimeShAn ukR^itAtmanA sarvato.avidyayA viddhAH kleshamayyA vashIkR^itAH (~Ahirbudhnya Samhita 6.31-32) Meaning: They (the jIvAs) are by nature the inseparable attributes (bhUti-bhEdA), forming bhagavAn’s (AtmanaH) wealth (bhUti) on account of being his body. They are omniscient (sarva~jnAh) in reality/in their natural condition, and complete, ie, manifesting 8 attributes (sarvatOmukhaH).However, they are ensnared and hurt (affected) in all ways, ie, karma-ruci-vAsaNaprakrti sambandha (sarvataH vashIkR^itAH viddhAH) owing to the avidyA (bodies), which iscomposed ofthe power of bhagavAn, ie, prakrti (avidyayA bhagavacchaktimayyA), whose nature (the combinations of triguNas) consists of states such as clouded in intellect (manda), hot or desirous due to passion (tIvra), which operates as an agent for clear vision or dharma-bhUta-jnAna (sudarshana),

opening/expansion (unmeSha) and closing/contraction (nimeSha) of the respective entities, which is characterized by affliction (kleshamayya) in the form experience of pain and pleasure. “bhEdA” mean his amShas, ie, the jIvAs who are his inseparable attributes by virtue of being his bodies. “bhEdA” can mean “parts” or “different entities”. “Parts” means “inseparable attributes” on account of being his bodies. “different entities” means the same, since inseparability implies difference and hence, “different” denotes “inseparable” here. They are his wealth (bhUti) since the body is the property of the self. It is said they are “sarva~jna” in their natural condition and have the 8 qualities beginning with apahatapApma denoted by “sarvatOmukhaH”, but become clouded in intellect (manda) etc due to association with bodies (denoted by avidya as it causes ignorance), which are made of prakrti, which is again composed of the triguNas, which causes experience of pain and pleasure. These bodies are again said to be the agent for “sudarShana” or clear vision, which is nothing but attributive knowledge (DBJ). The sense organs are the gateways for DBJ in the baddha jIvAs. The terms “unmeSha” and “nimeSha” refer to expansions and contractions of DBJ or opening and closing of the sense organs to allow expansions and contractions of DBJ, which is the cause for the loss of the natural condition of sarva~jnatva. Bhagavad Shakti here refers to prakrti here. The svetAsvatAra Upanishad refers to prakrti as “mAya” as it acts in wondrous and bewildering ways, and the Lord as “mAyin” as he is the wielder of mAya or prakrti. Thus prakrti is a power of the Lord. “Shakti” does not refer to Lakshmi here. “anantAya kalpatE”, “sarvajna”, “sarvaM ha paShyaM paShyati”, “sarvavith” – different terms used, all denoting omniscience only. The context establishes it to be so. Additionally, the pramANa which was so kindly provided by the author himself references contracted DBJ as “apUrNatA”, which implies muktAs have DBJ as “pUrNaM”: anityatvam dehahāniḥ duḥkhaprāptirapūrṇatā | nāśaścaturvidhaḥ proktaḥ tadabhāvo hareḥ sadā | tadanyeṣāṁ tu sarveṣāṁ nāśāḥ kecidbhavanti hi || Meaning: Association with a temporary body (ie, birth), relinquishing the body (ie, death), acquisition of sorrow, incompleteness (ie, contraction of DBJ) are four kinds of loss or destruction, ie, modification on account of karmas. Sri Hari does not have any of these. All the others (in samsAra) have some kind of loss/destruction/modification (at varying times). ShrI vedAnta desikan quotes the mahabhArata (Santi Parva, 313, 26-31) which also talks of the mukta as omniscient. But it will just get lengthy if everything is reproduced here, so this will do. Hence proven. PP: A non-existent, anti-scriptural and irrational concept of DBJ is used in an irrational, anti-scriptural and inconsistent way (expansions and contractions of DBJ, leading to variations of bliss in saMsāra,

but equality of bliss in mokṣa) to force-fit a ridiculous and anti-scriptural concept of ānanda-sāmya in mokṣa, by ignoring the explicitly stated expressions in scriptures that emphatically declare that the discussion is for muktas only. SD: The only things that are “non-existent, inconsistent, anti-scriptural and irrational” include BimbaPratibimba, denial of sharIrAtma bhAva and other absurd arguments put forward by the pUrvapakshinsuch as “dehanAsha affects Brahman”, “Lord is non-different from his body”, etc.Especially “ridiculous, irrational, anti-scriptural and inconsistent” is the claim that sharIrAtma bhAva has no pramaNAs despite the famous Upanishads openly declaring that relationship and forcing a non-existent and redundant image-reflection theory on the shAstra. The shAstras do not declare thatany expressions of Ananda tAratamya pertain to moksha (much less “emphatically”), but only refer to differences in samsAra. We Vishishtadvaitins ignore nothing. Rather, the dvaitins are the ones ignoring context, it is amazing how every interpretation of theirs gives no thought to the context at all. This will be discussed below. EXPLANATION OF THE ANANDAVALLI (Note:The pUrvapakSin quotes the entire Anandavalli as “proof” of Ananda tAratamya. He has not made any specific arguments here, but argues over this in a later section. So let me just explain the context of the Anandavalli myself here in my own words, with the formal vishishtadvaitic commentary provided in a later section) saiShA.a.anandasya mImA{\m+}sA bhavati . yuvA syAtsAdhuyuvA.adhyAyakaH . AshiShTho dR^iDhiShTho baliShThaH .tasyeyaM pR^ithivI sarvA vittasya pUrNA syAt . sa eko mAnuSha AnandaH . te ye shataM mAnuShA AnandAH .. sa eko manuShyagandharvANAmAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM manuShyagandharvANAmAnandAH . sa eko devagandharvANAmAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM devagandharvANAmAnandAH . sa ekaH pitR^iNAM chiralokalokAnAmAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM pitR^iNAM chiralokalokAnAmAnandAH . sa eka AjAnajAnAM devAnAmAnandaH .. shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM AjAnajAnAM devAnAmAnandAH . sa ekaH karmadevAnAM devAnAmAnandaH .ye karmaNA devAnapiyanti . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM karmadevAnAM devAnAmAnandAH .sa eko devAnAmAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya .

te ye shataM devAnAmAnandAH . sa eka indrasyA.a.anandaH ..shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shatamindrasyA.a.anandAH . sa eko bR^ihaspaterAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM bR^ihaspaterAnandAH . sa ekaH prajApaterAnandaH .shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM prajApaterAnandAH .sa eko brahmaNa AnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya .. Context of the Anandavalli What is the context first? The Upanishad wants us to yearn for moksha, which is the experience of the Ananda arising from the auspicious qualities of Brahman (brahmavidApnoti paraM, AnandaM brahmaNo vidvAn). This ananda is infinite. So, the Upanishad thinks, “is it possible to describe this Ananda or enumerate it fully? Let me try”. This alone, is the context. The Veda Purusha is overawed by the infiniteness of brahmAnanda experienced in moksha and thus has the following agendas to talk about: 1) Is BrahmAnanda a worthwhile purushArtha to desire for, ie, does Brahman have infinite Ananda which we experience in moksha? For we see that we can experience some Ananda from other things in samsAra itself.So why yearn for moksha? 2) If it is said that this Ananda is truly greater than whatever we can experience in samsAra, let me (the veda puruSha) try to enumerate it. If we understand this context, we will at once see that the object of this section is not to enumerate the different Anandas of various beings (such differences not even existing in moksha) or to negate Ananda sAmyaM in moksha. Rather, the Upanishad recommends the pursuit of brahmAnanda as a purushArtham, and asks seekers to yearn for it. In proof of that being a worthwhile thing, it tries to measure brahmAnanda and determine how great it is. How does it try to measure brahmAnanda? Let us assume a person does not know what an object can be described as. What does he do? He tries to compare it to an object he knows well. For example, “I have never seen a pot of gold, but I have heard it is equivalent to a bundle of cash which I have seen”. In this manner, the Upanishad tries to describe the unknown Ananda of Brahman (analogous to the pot of gold) by comparing it to the Ananda of baddha jIvAs which are well-known in samsAra (analogous to the cash). Since it is heard that brahmAnanda is said to be much greater than any Ananda we know, the Upanishad takes whatever is well known – the highest possible Ananda of each type of being in samsAra at its absolute perfection, and multiplies it progressively to determine if the highest possible cumulative Ananda in samsAra can even reach close to brahmAnanda. Thus, it cannot be said the “Ananda mimAmsa” is delineating Ananda of muktas. Because, the purpose of the Ananda mimAmsa is to determine the Ananda of Brahman, the means for such determination is by comparing the unknown brahmAnanda with known Anandas of the greatest baddha jIvAs in samsAra, and the purpose for such determination is to show that it is truly infinite and greater than all alpa-

Anandas in samsAra, which in turn means it is to be sought after, which in turn means it is experienced by muktas in moksha. The Upanishad begins with “brahmavidApnOti paraM” and says after the Ananda mimAmsa – “Anandam brahmaNo vidvAn”, “yatO vAchO nivartantE…” proclaiming the infinite nature and qualities of Brahman cannot be described fully. In the light of that, it is clear that the Ananda mimAmsa is an inquiry of brahmAnanda, which is experienced in moksha and hence, “sa ekO brahmaNaH Ananda…” at the end refers to Brahman (and not a “mukta chaturmukha brahma” as the dvaitins think), as inquiry of the bliss of Brahman ends only with Brahman and not Brahma. Measurement of Ananda in the Anandavalli The logic the Upanishad takes is this – 1) “ Let me measure this little known brahmAnanda that is proclaimed to be great, by comparing it with well-known Anandas in samsAra”. 2) Let me assume a random number of “1” for the lowest Ananda, which is manushyAnanda. The Upanishad goes on to multiply manushyAnanda by 100 to get the next Ananda, then by 100 to get the Ananda of other beings. However, this does not mean the Anandas are higher exactly by multiples of 100. In mathematics, we often do approximations like – “Let thedistance between Andromeda and Milky Way be equal to 1 (although it is many light years). Then the distance between Milky Way and Whirlpool Galaxy is 10 times that (although it may be many more light years.” So, even the numbers are not exact, but mere representations to satisfy the original quest --- trying to fully describe brahmAnanda. If we understand the context and the basics of this measurement, it becomes clear that the Upanishad is not attempting to chronicle Ananda bhEda of muktas as mAdhvas think. The entire section is an elaboration of a (futile) attempt to put the grandeur of brahmAnanda in words, and by saying you cannot describe it fully, attracting the person to seek that Ananda. Explanation of the Anandas for different beings First is manushya Ananda. The agreeable traits of a perfected human being which confer Ananda are mentioned, since anything agreeable causes Ananda. This is clearly a description of samsAric traits, as “young, fastidious in study of the veda” etc are traits seen here in samsAra. Thus, it refutes the dvaita conception that this refers to mukta manushya. A 100 times manusha Ananda is manushya-gandharva Ananda. The differences in Ananda are only due to contractions and expansions of DBJ on account of karma. The mantra says “shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya” from now on. This refers to a mukta, who is divested of desire and knows the shAstra. From now on, the Upanishad says:

100 times manushya ananda is 1 manushya-gandharva ananda, and also for a mukta. 100 times manushya-gandharva ananda is 1 deva gandharva ananda and also for a mukta…and so on. Why does the Upanishad say this? It is to show that though the Ananda of samsArIs (manushya, gandharva, etc) increases progressively, the mukta possesses all these Anandas, ie, all of these Anandas are included in the Ananda of a mukta. Thus, it is a mere clarification that a mukta possesses all Anandas. It is also to emphasize it is a cause for wonder, ie, as samsAric Anandas get multiplied to great levels, the mukta still possesses all those Anandas, thus making mukti a desirable thing to seek. Unlike the dvaitins’ belief, it is not saying the gandharvas etc are liberated, but merely that even if the Ananda multiplies by factors of 100 for each elevated being in samsAra, all this is part of the mukta’s ananda which is infinite. The mukta has all the Anandas while the Ananda of samsAris fluctuates based on expanding DBJ. As Ananda of samsAris is multiplied based on expanding DBJ, it is clarified that a mukta has that Ananda too included in his Ananda. In the Chandogya (8.12.3) which was explained previously, it is said that the mukta has experiences of his past bodies without the taints of sorrow and dehAtma bhrama due to being free of karmas as he is a sarvaj~na, so all Anandas are included in his Ananda on account of his sarvaj~natva and thus, this is the meaning here. Finally, the Upanishad says, te ye shataM bR^ihaspaterAnandAH . sa ekaH prajApaterAnandaH .shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM prajApaterAnandAH .sa eko brahmaNa AnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya .. Ananda of Brihaspati multiplied by 100 = 1 Ananda of Brahma and that (included) of a mukta. Prajapati does not refer to Daksha, but Chaturmukha Brahma. Ananda of Prajapati multiplied by 100 = 1 unit of the Ananda of Brahman and (included) of a mukta. mAdhvas interpret Prajapati as Daksha and “sa ekO brahmaNa Ananda” as Ananda of a “mukta” Brahma. This is wrong because the Upanishad begins with “brahmavidApnoti paraM” where it refers to Brahman only. And as proven by the context earlier, the entire purpose is to measure BrahmAnanda. Thus, “sa ekO brahmaNa Ananda” refers to one Ananda of Brahman (and included for a mukta). But now, is BrahmAnanda only 100 times that of Brahma, the highest being in samsAra? Has the Upanishad succeeded in reducing it to that? Not so! For next, the Upanishad says: yato vAcho nivartante . aprApya manasA saha …AnandaM brahmaNo vidvAn . The Upanishad says, “Alas! I have not succeeded in describing brahmAnanda fully. It is not merely 100 times that of Brahma, it is much, much more, it is infinite. This whole endeavor is fruitless as Brahman cannot be fully described by mind and speech!.The wise truly understand Brahman is of the nature of Ananda.”

Simple as that. The entire exercise was to point out that brahmAnanda is immeasurable and to inculcate a desire in the seeker to experience it on moksha. The Vishishtadvaita stance is clearly logical. PP: And the Brahman has to do all the activities and yet the mukta jīvas, who dont do any thing will reap the same bliss of the Lord, who does all the work. SD: What the pUrvapkSin says in jest is actually true. The shAstra says whatever we do is insignificant compared to his grace. His grace is the true means, not our sAdhana, and by virtue of his grace, the reward is also disproportionally higher than our efforts! This is based on bhakti and prapatti. But I’m not going to elaborate the entire doctrine of bhakti and prapatti here. PP: The Taittriya says: sOsnutE sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipascitA There is no end to the assumptions. Next assumption is that a mukta jīva gets the cognition of Brahman's kalyāṇa guṇa-s completely (as much as Brahman Himself or else there is no scope for ānanda sāmya). Next assumption is that all the mukta jīvas get equal cognition of Brahman's kalyāṇa guṇa-s implying all get full cognition of all the kalyaṇa guṇa-s of the Lord. Next assumption is that allthe mukta jīvas get equal enjoyment. Next assumption is that this enjoyment of all the jīvas equals that of Brahman Himself. SD: The phrasing is very crudely put. But why the drama? In the author’s desperation to paint Vishishtadvaita as “a-prAmANika”, he deliberately dramticises his statements, when clear pramANAs have been shown that – 1) Brahman’s guNAs are the object of experience in moksha, 2) As the guNAs are infinite, DBJ is infinite, Ananda is infinite. as one may have noticed, no assumption has been made in validating what shAstra says by us. It is just some theatrics on the part of the author trying to use the word “assumption” in a lengthy rant to try to falsely discredit Vishishtadvaita. DHARMA-BHUTA-JNANA AND RELATED TOPICS PP: For accomplishing this impossible thing, a non-existent dhama bhūta jñāna is used. It is supposed to continue into mokṣa to accomplish the above impossible things. This is akin to bringing lot of hare’s horns, then paint them with different colors and then using them to build the machines that make all the humans equally strong. The continuation of DBJ into mokṣa is not only unsupported, but it goes against scriptures. "na pretya samjñā asti" (Nothing other than svarūpajñāna, is carried to mokṣa). Later on this concept of DBJ will be refuted completely. SD: There is nothing impossible, its’ just that your mind cannot register simple things. Sound pramANas have been given for DBJ and sharIrAtma bhAva. Let us see what thatupanishadic statement “na pretya samjñā asti”means now.

sa yathA saindhavakhilya udake prAsta udakamevAnuvilIyetasa yathA saindhavakhilyas udake prAstas udakam evaanuvilIyeta na hAsyodgrahaNAyeva na hAsyodgrahaNAyaiva syAdna aha asya udgrahaNAya eva na ha asya udgrahaNAya eva syAt yato yatastvAdadIta lavaNamevaivaM vA ara idaM mahadbhUtamanantamapAraM vij~nAnaghana evaitebhyo bhUtebhyaH samutthAya to-yatas tu AdadIta lavaNam eva evam vai are idammahat bhUtam anantam apAram vij~nAnaghanas eva etebhyas bhUtebhyas samutthAyatAnyevAnuvinashyati tAni eva anuvinashyati na pretya sa~nj~nA.astItyare bravImIti hovAcha yAj~navalkyaH na pretya sa~nj~nA asti iti are bravImi iti ha uvAchayAj~navalkyas || (~BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad 2.4.12) || Meaning: “Just as a lump of salt dropped into water becomes dissolved in water and no-one is able to take it out again, but from whichever part of that water one takes it, it tastes salty – In the same way, my dear (Maitreyi), this great being which is infinite, endless, becoming the innerself of the jIvAtma arises from these elements and is destroyed with them. After departing from the final body, (the jIvAtma)has no longer that knowledge. This I tell you, my dear”, said YajnavAlkya to Maitreyi. The Upanishad reminds here that the essential nature of the jIvAtma in all states is established in paramAtma and so the jIvAtma is not having any svAtantrya. Here, paramAtma is called as “jIvAtma” by virtue of sharIrAtma bhAva, as he has the jIva as his body and names denoting the body, also denote the self. Thus, jIva sharIraka paramAtma, is transmigrating in the Universe following the birth of the body which is the aggregate of 5 elements and the death of such a body. This is mentioned to exhort the jIvAtma to undertake meditation for attaining immortality. Just as salt is dissolved in water, the Supreme Brahman which is different from sentients and insentients “enters” in the form of the jIva (ie, having the jIva as his body, the jIva sharIraka paramAtma enters) into a body upon birth and is manifested and destroyed as per birth and death of the body. By “destroyed”, it is only meant that the bodies are destroyed. The self, being closely associated with the body, and paramAtma, which is the indweller of the self, can be termed as “destroyed” by virtue of aprthak siddhi. The jIvAtma in association with the bodies being destroyed thus has “dehAtma bhrAnti” and identifies itself with the body being manifested and destroyed, hence it is said to arise and be “destroyed” here. If it is asked how can paramAtma enter into the aggregate of 5 elements, it is answered that it is only the jIva doing such entry. But since the jIva is the body of paramAtma and names denoting the body refer to the self in the ultimate analysis, it can be said paramAtma enters. Furthermore, as paramAtma is “apahatapApma” and “akhilahEyapratyanIka”, he is not affected by such pervasion and entry or changes as the jIvAtma is.

The jIva is thus, exhorted to undertake upAsaNa to attain moksha. Now, for “na pretya samjna asti”. “prEtya” means after the destruction of the final body. “samjna” means “bhUtasamghAtEna ekIkrutyajnAna” – The knowledge of identity with the body that is the collection of 5 elements. Thus, it refers to “dehAtma bhrama:” – identifying the self with the body. So, “na pretya samjna asti” simply means, “after destruction of the final body, this knowledge of considering oneself identical to the body, is no longer there”. That is amply clear as the context from the previous description of the jIvA in association with the perishable bodies. When the true nature of the jIva manifests, birth and destruction following the group of elements will no longer be there. Then Maitreyi queries, sA ha uvAcha maitreyI atraiva mA bhagavAnamUmuhad atra eva mA bhagavAn amUmuhan na pretya sa~nj~nA.astIti | na pretya sa~nj~nA asti iti sa hovAcha sa ha uvAcha yAj~navalkyas. OM.na vA are.ahaM mohaM bravImy na vai are aham moham bravImi alaM vA ara idaM vij~nAnAya alam vai are idam vij~nAnAya || (~BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad 2.4.12) || Meaning: Maitreiyi says, “Just here in this statement alone you have bewildered me by saying – having departed, there is no knowledge. YajnavAlkya said, “Certainly I’m not saying anything confusing, my dear Maitreyi. This is quite enough for knowledge”. Maitreyi became confused as she thought it was not compatible to say that in the state of moksha, there is absence of knowledge, for that would be against the nature of the sentient jIvAtma. This is because of her inability to understand the full meaning of YajnavAlkya’s statement. Though the word “samjna” means “dehAtmaikya bhrAnti”, or identifying the body with the self, she was confused to hear the term “samjna asti” as she did not know the meaning of “samjna”. The meaning of YajnavAlkya’s statement “This is quite enough for Knowledge”is that the mahadbhUtaM which is called as “vijnAnaghaNa” was enough to know even after the fall of the final body. The meaning of “samjnAnabhAva” is “dehAtmaikya vishayaka bhrAntyabhAva:”. So, this samjnAnabhAva is

not opposed to the vijnAnaghaNatva of the jIvAtma and does not also deny the existence of dharmabhUta-jnAna in anyway. The author interprets “na pretya samjna asti” wildly out of contextand then claims it does not support DBJ. Ridiculous. PP: (Regarding the example of the gem and its luster) The diamond has the following property. All these are inherent to it. It has innate radiance. This innate radiance itself has the following properties 1. It reacts to external light. The brighter the external light, the greater its dazzling, reflecting the light and shining forth. 2. Its capacity to reflect the light depends on its own capacity and also the non-interference another substance like mud, dust or a dark paper wrap, etc. 3. In pitch dark, where not even dim light is there, not even ultraviolet light or the like there, it has not got anything to reflect. 4. Even after the removal of dust, etc, there is no scope forinfinite light emanating from the gem. SD: No need to talk about mud, paper, etc.Your first sentence itself is an oxymoron – “diamond has following property, all these are inherent to it”. A property is an attribute and cannot be the nature of the substance itself.So, before proving your position, you have assumed your position is correct. Don’t trouble yourself, the analogy is provided in shAstras itself as follows: “yathA na kriyatE jyotsnA malaprakShAlanAt manEh| doSha prahANat na jnAnaM AtmanaH kriyatE tathA….” (~vishNu dharma 104.55-56, quoted in srI bhAshya) Saunaka Muni -- “As the lustre of the gem is not created by the act of polishing, so the own intelligence (DBJ) of the Self is not created by the putting off of imperfections. As the well is not the cause of the production of rain water, but only serves to manifest water which already exists—for whence should that originate which is not? Thus knowledge and the other attributes of the Self are only manifested through the putting off of evil qualities; they are not produced, for they are eternal” (vishNu dharmam, quoted in srI bhAshya) The author is (purposely) misunderstanding even a simple analogy which is provided by Saunaka muni in the vishNu dharmam. Firstly the luster of the diamond is its’ attribute. The difference between an attribute and a substance has already been established. The gem has innate radiance that is of the form of heat (tejas). It also has radiance (prabha) that shines forth and constitutes the color, luster or brilliance and since the functions of the two (innate radiance and outward radiance) are different, one is the substance, which is different from the attribute. Inseparability implies difference, as has been repeated ad nauseum.

The karmas are like dust blocking the light (DBJ) issuing out from the gem (jIva). When the dust (karmas) is cleansed, luster (DBJ) issues forth. So, the gem (jIva) reveals itself (svarUpa jnAna) and can illumine external objects (DBJ). To the remaining arguments: Saunaka (as quoted before) provides the analogy only to explain how DBJ issues forth like luster from a gem. It cannot be argued that “ultraviolet light/reflective light means it hasn’t got anything to reflect”. This is stupid vitanda-vAda and an unnecessary extension of the analogy to illogical purposes. However, why not? Even though the author’s questions stretch the analogy, we can descend to his level and actually answer them logically. So, in summation, answering your absurd queries scientifically: 1) The properties mentioned by the author are attributes of the gem and not its’ innate nature. He is scientifically wrong in his facts. Innate radiance of the gem cannot be seen by the eye, as it exists in the form of heat. If you use the gem like a torch, only its’ effulgence (prabha) which is an attribute in the form of a particular color and brilliance/luster, reveals external objects. A gem with powerful yellow glow when used like a lamp reveals other objects via its’ yellow light. This is common sense. 2) The gem by itself is not radiant. It doesn’t even have “innate radiance” as the author claims, scientifically speaking. It gains radiance only in association with light. This is accepted. But that is not the purpose of the analogy. Just as “Man is like a Lion” does not mean man walks on all fours, the purpose of the analogy is to compare two objects with some common attributes and some uncommon ones. So, the only purpose of the analogy is that just as the luster of a gem is its’ inseparable attribute obscured by dust, the DBJ is the inseparable attribute of the jIva obscured by karmas. 3) The author says “It reacts to external light” - When light hits the surface of a gem, some of it is absorbed, while some is reflected and transmitted. The light that is absorbed is converted into heat inside the gem and exists in a non-visible state (as heat cannot be cognized). The remaining light that is reflected back gives the gem its’ properties of color, luster etc. So, here, the absorbed light is the “innate radiance” whichexists in the form of heat and the reflected light that bounces off or goes out of the gem, is the “attributive light” or “luster” which is not intrinsic to the gem in the form of heat, but shines out of the gem (the color itself is an attribute which is determined by selective absorptionbased on the chemistry of the gem; what is important is that the absorbed light is the “tejas”or heat that is assumed intrinsic to the gem. The jIva is not actually a gem, so this is the limit of the analogy). So, a diamond is seen as an“object” with intrinsic heat (absorbed light converted to a non-visible form) and it has a “brilliant” or “white” luster due to reflected light.So, there you go – just as absorbed light and reflected light respectively are two different “lights” with different functions (one intrinsic to the gem and the other constituting the luster/color, one being non-visible as heat and the other being visible as color/luster respectively), the svarUpa jnAna and DBJ of jIva are different with different functions, despite both being “jnAna”. However, unlike the gem, the jIva does not need an

external entitylike light to give it its’ svarUpa jnAna and DBJ, and neither does its’ svarUpa jnAna exist as heat, as that would be stretching the analogy to illogical limits. 4) The author says “Its capacity to reflect the light depends on its own capacity” – When the shAstra says “gem” with respect to “jIva”, it implies a class of gems that are identical just as “rice” can signify several identical rice grains. So one cannot assume here by “gem”, different capacities or different gems are signified in the analogy. And DBJ is not by external factors such as external light as well. 5) The author says “The capacity to reflect light is determined by the non-interference another substance like mud, dust or a dark paper wrap, etc.”- In a similar manner, the capacity of expansion of DBJ is determined by the karmas obscuring the DBJ. 6) The author says “In pitch dark, where not even dim light is there, not even ultraviolet light or the like there, it has not got anything to reflect” – Similarly, during suShupti, when there is no second object to the jIva, the DBJ cannot illumine external objects. That’s the way the analogy should be used. The DBJ is useful only in illumining external objects, so the absence of the latter means it is not active. Thus, even the bogus arguments of the author can be answered rationally. Lastly, the author says “Even after the removal of dust, etc, there is no scope forinfinite light emanating from the gem.” –That is proven from shAstra. Take the analogy – “This man is like a lion”. Does this analogy mean we literally have to compare and check if every attribute of lion = attribute of man? No, the analogy only extends to courage and strength, being feared etc. Similarly, arguments like “Even after the removal of dust, etc, there is no scope for infinite light emanating from the gem”are absurd. The jIvAtma is not an actual gem and the karmas are not actual dust, the luster is not actual DBJ. It is only an analogy to explain how DBJ expands upon removal of karmas, like luster shines out after removing dust from a gem. The only purpose of the analogy is to say that the jIva and its’ DBJ are associated like the gem and its luster and not to say the jIvA is exactly equal to a gem in all properties. For the jIvA, the DBJ can be extended to infinity. The shAstra clearly says “sarvaM ha paShya paShyati” implying omniscience and infinitely expanded DBJ. The svEtAsvatAra Upanishad (5-9) also reteirates this fact as follows: bAlAgrashatabhAgasya shatadhA kalpitasya cha | bhAgo jIvaH sa vij~neyaH sa chAnantyAya kalpate || (~Sve Up. 5-9) Meaning: The proportion of the jIva is to be known as equal to one hundredth part of the one hundredth part of the tip of the hair. He, verily becomes capable of attaining infinity (DBJ).

“sarvaM” does not refer to the Lord as mAdhvAs think, but means “all” indicating omniscience. Neither can SvetAsvatAra Upanishad vAkya be twisted in a similar manner. Both are explained according to context in other sections. PP: The light of this gem will not exceed the light of the Sun. (note that even the light of the Sun is not infinite and it relies on the Lord) SD: See above. This is an illogical stretching of the analogy provided in vishNu dharmaM. And curiously enough, when the author’s gurus use analogies like “King is like a Lion in a Battlefield”, he gets the analogy perfectly! Hmm….vitanda vAda at its’ best. The gem-luster analogy explains how the DBJ shines out from the Atma. The other pramANAs show that this expansion is infinite. PP: Where does this DBJ come from? Is that inherent to jīva or not? Where is its locus? Does it continue into mukti state? Why should it expand infinitely? If it is not inherent to jīva, what stops its being lost? If that has such an extra-ordinary capacity to make each jīva, even as insignificant as a bacteria to have infinite bliss in mokṣathen a source of such tall and big claim must not only find an explicit place in scriptures, but must have been repeated and emphasized many places as that is a very critical element, since it is removing the flaw of apūrṇata in the jīvas and bringing it in par with Brahman Himself. SD: The author is trying the tactic of rushing with questions, in an attempt to tout his so-called eloquency and trying to fool the audience into thinking he is super rational. Nice debating tactics, but ultimately useless. Answering your absurd queries one by one, 1) DBJ is an inseparable attribute of every sentient entity. Since Atma is eternal and its natureof “Iness” is indestructible, there was never a time it “came into being” and never a time it “becomes” inseparable to its DBJ. 2) DBJ is an inseparable attribute of the jIva, whose inherent nature is also jnAna. Though svarUpa jnAna and DBJ are both “jnAna”, they have different functions, ie, one reveals itself to itself and the other reveals itself and external objects to the self. Thus, they are inseparably associated and different. 3) Its’ locus is like any other guNa-guNi sambandha, which is that it has the dravya (jIva svarUpa) as its’ Ashraya. It itself is a dravya, as it has “change” as its attribute in the form of different states. Since no extraneous factors affect the sentiency of a jIvA, the inseparable association is never broken or lost. 4) Makes no sense to inquire if it “continues into mukti state” since it is an inseparable attribute of the jIva not subject to destruction. 5) In moksha, it expands infinitelyto experience the infinite qualities of the Lord and to serve him in all places, states, and times, by the Lord’s will.The purpose of our existence is to serve the Lord. An omniscient servant is a competent servant who can serve the Lord in all ways, states and places and the Lord prefers to make his servants competent. The Lord also loves his servants, so

he wants to give us infinite Ananda by making us experience his infinite guNAs. The only tall claim is denying this and claiming limitations of jnAna and Ananda in moksha. 6) A non-sequitor. All sentient beings have DBJ. There is no external factor that can affect the Atma’s association with DBJ sufficiently so that the latter is lost. That is what shruti clarifies by saying – na hi draShTurdR^iShTerviparilopo vidyate.avinAshitvAn(quoted earlier).Atma thus has essential and non-essential attributes. Karmas, body, etc are non-essential attributes as they can be destroyed. DBJ is an essential attribute as it is associated with the Atma at all times as it cannot be destroyed.This doesn’t however imply its’ part of the nature of the Atma, since its’ inseparable to the Atma (hence different) and has different functions. Note that when we say DBJ is indestructible, it is the will of the Lord. If he so wants, he can probably destroy the Atma itself, or just the ability of the Atma (DBJ) to see external objects. In such a case, Atma will be in a state similar to pralaya where DBJ is contracted to nil so there is only awareness of self without awareness of external objects. But of course, the Lord doesn’t do that, he is very fond of us. 7) shAstric proof of DBJ as well as for the omniscience and experiences of the jIvAs in moksha exist, its’ just that dvaitins can’t see it. Both “sarvaM hA pashyaM pashyati” and “anantAya kalpatE” in the SvetasvatAra Upanishad (5-9) talk of it. The very act of “knowing” external objects requires DBJ and as such, its’ self-evident as well. 8) DBJ does not impart pUrNatva to jIva in the sense of being equal to paramAtma because the svarUpa of jIva is still aNu. Furthermore, the expansion of the DBJ requires the grace of paramAtma, as the jIva exists only due to being his sharIra, thus dependent on him. The purpose of such expansion of DBJ is to serve paramAtma only. To say DBJ implies equality with paramAtma is an illogical and improper understanding of the concept. The fact that dvaitins still think just because a jIva is a bacterium in samsAra, it cannot eventually attain infinite bliss in moksha, shows their ignorance of the distinction between the body and the self. Not grasping that differences are due to karmas and the essential nature of a jIva is different from triguNAs, prakrti etc, they have been unable to understand how a jIva experiences Brahman in moksha. PP: Each gem reflects different amount of light. Each luminous object has its own capacity SD: Saunaka’s analogy in vishNu dharma quoted by srI rAmAnuja clearly said “gem” in singular. When we say “rice”, we mean a number of rice grains all identical to each other, hence they are referred collectively as rice. Similarly, saying “gem” to denote jIvA instead of saying “gems with different capacities” implies all jIvAs are identical in nature. Its’ the crux of the analogy, that all jIvAs have karma akin to dirt on a gem, and removal of karmas allows DBJ to shine forth. In any case, all jIvAs are his body, and since they all have identical natures (seshatva) on account of that, there is no difference in the capacity for expansion of DBJ as well. PP: Where is the usage of DBJ in Upaniṣats? What other equivalent word is used? SD: pramANAs have already been provided earlier for this.

DBJ simply means the attributive knowledge of the jIvA, also referred to as “jnAna” and has been called variously as “Atma guNa”, etc. It is the knowledge of external objects. The term “dvaita” or “vishishtadvaita” is also not explicitly used in the Upanishads, does it mean these terms are apramANika for usage?Dvaita is signified by bhEda and Vishishtadvaita by “sharIrAtma bhAva”. Wherever jnAna is referred to as an attribute of the Atman, it is nothing but its’ DBJ. The “sarvaM hA pashya pashyati:” and “anantAya kalpatE” (SvetAsvatAra Upanishad 5-9) have already been quoted, which explain omniscience of the jIva. eSha hi draShTa spraShTA shrotA ghrAtA rasayitA manta boddhA kartA vij~nAnAtmA puruShaH | sa pare.akShara Atmani sampratiShThate || 9|| This self (puruSha) which is of the nature of knowledge (vijnAnAtma) is verily the seer, the toucher, the hearer, the smeller, the taster, the knower (boddha) and the doer. The 2 different words used in the above statement “vijnAnAtma” and “boddha” – both connoting knowledge – are used to signify that the self is not only of the nature of knowledge, but also has knowledge as its’ attribute (DBJ). BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad (4.3.7) and SvetAsvatAra Upanishad (5.8) were quoted earlier, which distinguish svarUpa-jnAna and DBJ by using different terms. Other pramANAs which were quoted earlier, can also be referred to. No need to repeat them. PP: (Refuting “He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman” refers to greatness in jnAna of jIva) na pretya samjñā asti sa yo ha vai tatparaṁ brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati nāsyābrahmavit kule bhavati | tarati ṣokaṁ tarati pāpmānaṁ guhāgraṁthibhyo vimukto'ṁuto bhavati | |- Muṇḍakopaniśat - 3-2-9 Note that one does not become Brahman nor become equal to Brahman. SD: Nobody said one becomes Brahman or equal to Brahman. One manifests the 8 fold attributes which are of the nature of Brahman, being similar to the qualities possessed by Brahman. However, the fact that being “free of karmas, free of thirst” etc extra is a trait equally shared by Brahman and muktas, even dvaitins have to accept. Only difference is, these traits manifest in the jIva by his grace and hence the jIva is dependent on him for these traits, whereas he is independent. Theupanishadic statement “na pretya samjñā asti”was explained earlier. Let us take a look at the MundakOpanishad statement now. sa yo ha vai tatparaṁ brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati nāsyābrahmavit kule bhavati | tarati ṣokaṁ tarati pāpmānaṁ guhāgraṁthibhyo vimukto'ṁuto bhavati | |- Muṇḍakopaniśat - 3-2-9

Meaning: He who becomes endowed with meditation which has assumed a similar form of vivid perception, will become one in whom the form of Brahman becomes manifested. In this line will not be born anyone who does not know Brahman. He overcomes grief and transcends sin. Becoming freed from the knots of the heart, he becomes immortal. yo ha vai tatparaṁ brahma veda – “prItirUpApaNNadarShaNasamAnAkArOpAsaNayuktO bhavati” – When he is endowed with upAsaNa which is of the character of vivid perception and which is of the form of love. “brahmaiva bhavati” - “AvirbhUta brahmarUpO bhavati” - He will become one in whom the form of Brahman becomes manifested. This means, being freed from rAga, dvEsha, etc., he will manifest in himself the 8 characteristics of Brahman such as apahatapApma (freedom from sin), vijara (freedom from age), vimRtyu, (freedom from death), viSoka (freedom from sorrow), vijigIsa (freedom from hunger), avipASa (freedom from thirst), satyakAma (desires are true) and satyasankalpa (whose will is true). Everything is attained by the grace of paramAtma, so there is no equality in status. Even “satya sankalpa” is because paramAtma fulfills all desires of the jIva, so that means the jIva’s will is true. PP: brahmatvaṁ bṛṁhitatvaṁ syājjīvānāṁ na parātmatā | asvataṁtrasya jīvasya kuto nityasvataṁtratā (Skanda Purana) SD: That purANa verse only says jIvAs can never become independent or equal to Brahman. Vishishtadvaitins were the first to establish that through sharIrAtma bhAva. PP: (Referring to the Anandavalli) How can any one claim that the śruti speaks of gradation of ānanda in an everfluctuating saMsāra that too of the devatas and keeps completely silent of what happens to muktātmās, when actually a constancy (steady state) is reached? SD: The Anandavalli has been satisfactorily explained earlier. Further explanation will follow in a later section. PP: Muktas are under the control of Sriman Nārāyaṇa. They derive their bliss only from Sriman Nārāyaṇa by doing kainkaryam. Sure. What does it mean by "experiencing His kalyāṇa guṇa-s". Does it mean they meditate upon those and derive bliss? Then that is fine too. How will any of these help? SD: Of course. They serve the Lord and derive Ananda by meditating on his guNAs. Because, unlike the mAdhvas who believe the muktas “experience guNas as per their own capacity”, shAstra says that they experience with infinite DBJ. It means, they meditate with infinite jnAna on those infinite guNas and then derive infinite bliss. PP: It is obvious that the jñāna of the Lord is infinite. That is His svarūpajñāna itself. Why does he need this ever-dubious, non-existing and never-mentioned dharma-bhUta-jñāna? Is thsi jñāna pertinent to saMsāra? If so, the Lord never has any saMsāra? Obviously this is not same as

svarūpajñāna. What is it? Where is it mentioned? An imaginary role of making the non-existent dharma SD: Hardly dubious when your “refutations” are wrong as per both logic and shAstra as seen earlier. DBJ is the essential attribute of (different and inseparable to) a sentient entity. The knowledge by which a sentient entity knows anotherexternal object is its DBJ. SvarUpa jnAna only reveals the self, it doesn’t reveal external things. Brahman knows himself by his svarUpa jnAna and Brahman has DBJ which is infinite and the different auspicious attributes are different states of that DBJ. Unlike the jIva, his svarUpa is also infinite, meaning, he can be everywhere at once. The declaration of Brahman being infinite in svarUpa means that he is everywhere. He can be in every place at once. He perceives external objects by his DBJ and exhibits kalyANa guNAs. The jIva is aNu svarUpa, thus it is not everywhere. In moksha, it has infinite DBJ by which it can pervade and control other bodies by its’ jnAna, while remaining localized in one body (this is explained later as well). Where is the confusion? The author loves using “imaginary”, “assumptions”, etc in a dramatic fashion, but struggles to provide proof of even the most basic concepts of dvaita like bimba-pratibimba vAda himself and brings up a nonstarter such as dehanAsha as a major issue. The irony. PP: DBJ is nonexistent. if the dhama bhūta jñāna of the mukta jīva is also infinite(because of infinite expansion), then like DBJ of Paramātma, the DBJ of every mukta jīva must also be all-pervading. That is totally wrong and not mentioned in any scripture. SD: Just because you don’t like a truth, doesn’t mean it is wrong or that it is non-scriptural. Pramanas have already been provided. Both Brahman and jIvAs have infinite DBJ. But the DBJ of the jIvAs is dependent on Brahman,just as they themselves are dependent on him for their existence. He alone is independent. “sarvaM ha paShya paShyati:”. The DBJ of every mukta is indeed infinite and all-pervasive. SvetAsvatAra Upanishad (5-9) also clearly states this as “anantAya kalpatE”. However, the svarUpa of the jIvAs is aNu, whereas paramAtma is vibhU. Thus, Brahman literally can be in many places and bodies, but the jIvA can only control bodies with their DBJ and can only be in one place. PP: For bhagavan, saying "there is no contraction or expansion of His jñānA" - this is an indication of absence of Vikara. "the dharma bhūta jñānA of bhagavAn undergoes transformations" – this is an indication of Vikara. SD: Firstly what do shAstras mean by “avikAra”? The word is positively abused by the author. It means, his nature of being “akhila hEya pratyanIka” and “samastha kalyANa guNAtmaka” is unchanging at all times, all states and all places. That’s all.

Brahman is “avikAra” does not undergo contractions or expansions of DBJ due to karma. So, saying his DBJ undergoes transformations from one kalyANa guNA to another based on perception of external objects is not a dosha. It is not even a vikAra since Brahman remains blissful as ever with no change to essential nature and being qualified by kalyANa guNAs. Each guNa of his is equally great and he never “loses” any guNa at any point. Depending on the situation, he exhibits qualities of grace, mercy, anger, majesty, etc which are all kalyANA guNAs and hence, there is no diminishment or augmentation by display of some guNAs at some times, others at certain times or all guNAs at all times. His jnAnam may manifest as wrath sometimes, as mercy at other times. He hides some guNAs, he shows some guNAs at other times. These are the “transformations” – at all times, he is unchanged in his condition of being devoid of blemishes and having all auspicious attributes which are again unchanged/indestructible. Simple, isn’t it? PP: If "Brahman by His very nature is homogenous and cannot be divided into parts (Neha NAnAsti Kincana)", how and why will the bliss of all the other jīvas become equal to that of Brahman ? Isn’t it also important to realize that the Lord is greater than all the akṣaras also? SD: “neha nAnAsti kincana” has already been explained. Only means the Brahman within a rock is the same as the Brahman within a human. The idea is, wherever Brahman is, he is full of kalyANA guNAs and devoid of blemishes. Thinking he becomes diminished by becoming antaryAmin/during avatArAs/or in temples is wrong according to the vAkya. The Lord is greater than the aksharAs,that is why the aksharAs derive Ananda from Brahman. They are dependent on him, and the infiniteness of their bliss is because the kalyANA guNAs of Brahman confer infinite Ananda. PP: (On the analogy of “wife enjoying husband’s guNas equally with husband”) It is hard to find a wife, who enjoys what ever her husband does. SD: Nice joke! But again, you fail to see that bhagavAn is the perfect “pati” being flawless in nature and attributes, and thus, whatever he does will be a source of enjoyment for the jIvAs who are his wives. Furthermore, the jIva being a wife arises from the sharIrAtma bhAva, and the body always serves the self, as opposed to other wives who are not bodies of their husbands. PP: It is against our pratyakṣa that both of them will have same joy. There is no mandate that any two individuals must have same joy. SD: Oh, is it against pratyaksha that a wife is happy if say, the husband secures a good job? Is this not Ananda for the wife stemming from the happiness/activities of the husband? Are they not equally happy? So basically the author is likely a very reclusive person, it would seem he will never become happy for the sake of his family on any issue! Joy is not a measurement. If a husband succeeds in life, wife is happy for him. Thus, wife enjoys the success of the husband. Both their ananda are the same, is it not? It is a shared Ananda, with the source

being the husband. Similarly, Brahman and jIvA are seshi-sesha due to sharIrAtma bhAva. The Ananda of Brahman is experienced by the jIva. PP: The husband also should enjoy what ever his wife does. That is just as the wife is pativrata, the husband must be a patnivrata. Even then there is no guarantee that their joys will be equal or same SD: Again, the author mangles the definition of an “analogy” and takes it beyond its reasonable limits. Firstly, Brahman is no ordinary husband. He is avApta samastha kAman, has no benefits from the jIvA. Thus, he is the one who gives Ananda to the jIva, though one can say he becomes happy too by their service to him. There is no guarantee the joy will be the same in samsAra. Again, the author is stretching the analogy. The fact that joy is the same arises from infinite DBJ as proven by shASstra. The husband-wife analogy merely shows that Ananda of one person is also experienced by the other. PP: Let us take the instance of Sri Ramachandra, when He ruled the Earth. A very ordinary person,or an ordinary animal or an ordinary bird in His kingdom approved all the actions of Sri Rama. Does that mean that the joy of that person, animal or bird is same as the joy of Sri Rama chandra? SD: A person with jnAna indeed finds joy from the activities of paramAtma only. But until he reaches mukti, he cannot experience the full length of that joy. There is certainly Ananda tAratamya in samsAra, so this question of the author is fairly useless. PP: If the objection is that the example is not talking about Mukti, the wife and husband example is also not in Mukti. SD: Just as a man is not really a lion though we say “This man is a lion”. Analogies only need to be taken up to their reasonable limits, something you never seem to get. The analogy is only for talking about how one person can derive happiness from the happiness of another person. It does not endeavor to measure the joy and should not be stretched beyond that. The actual measurement of joy is through shAstra vAkyas such as “sarvaM ha pashya pashyati:” which implies Ananda sAmyaM through infinite DBJ. In any case, bhartru-bhArya sambandha is a very real outcome of sharIrAtma bhAva and exists in mukti. It is like this - paramAtma alone the puruSha (masculine) – ‘puruShOttama: sa Eva’. Everything else is feminine according to the purANAs – so says pillai lOkAchArya as follows: sa Eva vAsudevOsou sAkshAt purusha uchyatE | strI prAyam itarat sarvam jagat brahma purassaram || (Quoted by swami pillai lOkAchArya in “nava vidhA sambandham”, exact purANA not specified). This does not mean the jIvAs are literally feminine by nature. Just as a wife is married to the husband and does not look at another man, the jIva is wedded to paramAtma and does not serve another. Just as a wife is dependent on the husband, the jIva is dependent on paramAtma. This is an outcome of

sharIrAtma bhAva (let’s not now go into women’s rights arguments on this and accept the analogy for what it is). PP: How can one conclude that they get equal joy? Just because an elephant and a tiny animal get the water from the same lake, would any one conclude that they drink same amount of water? What kind of logic is that? SD: Elephant and Tiny Animal are different beings in samsAra. In moksha, all jIvAs are identical in nature. And the amount of water, ie, brahmAnanda, they “drink” is infinite, due to their DBJ and the kalyANa guNas both being infinite. PP: Jñāna and ānanda are indicative of status and the status is indicative of jñāna and ānanda. How can the jīva be much less in status and still have jñāna and ānanda equal to Brahman? SD: “Status” is indicated by dependence and independence only, which is manifested in the sesha-seshi sambandham due to sharIrAtma bhAva. Not other factors. The King can tell his subjects – “Go to my minister, he has the knowledge and power to solve all your problems”. It does not mean the minister is equal to the King in status as both can solve all problems, but he has been granted all these powers by the King only. The jIva’s infinite DBJ, Ananda, its’ very existence etc is dependent on paramAtma and it is his grace that sustains them. Thus, there is no equality in status. The jnAna and Ananda of jIvA are dependent upon Brahman whereas his jnAna and Ananda is independent. He can take it away if he wishes too. Plus, the jnAna of the jIva is “seshatva jnAna” and Ananda comes from serving him and experiencing his guNAs. Brahman’s Ananda comes from his own kalyANa guNas and also constitutes his nature. PP: yadā paśyaḥ paśyate rukmavarṇaṁ kartāramīśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahmayonim | tadā vidvān puṇyapāpe vidhūya nirañjanaḥ paramaṁ sāmyamupaiti || There is no mention of becoming equal in six guṇa-s. The context clearly indicates that it is only similarity. When one sees the entire canon of śrutis and smṛtis, it is quite evident that the jīva can never equal Paramātma. SD: Its not six, but 8 guNAs. And without these guNAs, there can be no moksha since they are: apahathapApmA (unaffected by sin), vijara: (unaffected by old age), vishOka: (free from sorrow), vimruthyu: (imperishable) vijiDhathsa: (free from hunger), apipAsa: (free from thirst), sathyakAma: (of true desire) and satya sankalpa (of true resolve) The manifestation of these 8 guNAs should be accepted by mAdhvas, for it is logical there is no hunger, thirst, sin, etc in moksha. “satya kAma” means the jIvA only has desire and love to serve paramAtma. No other desire. “satya sankalpa” means the jIvA’s wishes all come true as paramAtma grants whatever he desires (which is only service).

Here is the Vishishtadvaitic interpretation for paramaM sAmyaM shruti: yadA pashyaH pashyate rukmavarNaM kartAramIshaM puruShaM brahmayonim.h | tadA vidvAn.h puNyapApe vidhUya nira~njanaH paramaM sAmyamupaiti ||(Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.3)|| Meaning: When the Seer of Brahman sees the Supreme Self Vasudeva, the ruler of the Universe, having an effulgent auspicious divine body, the creator of the Universe and the cause of the unmanifested , then that knower of Brahman shaking off virtue and sin, being freed from the taint of matter, attains supreme similarity. “pashyatIti pashya:” – this refers to a seer of Brahman. “rukmavarNaM” means that the Lord has a nonmaterial divine body (made of suddha sattvaM) as referenced in “AdityavarNaM”. He is BrahmayoniM. The term “purusha” signifies the Supreme Vasudeva.“paramaM sAmyaM” indicates the manifestation of the 8 attributes of apahatapApma, vijaraH, vimRutyu, vishOka, vijighits, apipAsa, satyakAma, satya sankalpa and similarity in form (assuming bodies made of suddha sattva) with Brahman. It does not include equality in status with the Lord or his other kalyANa guNas, as muktas serve the Lord using these attributes. There is no equality in status certainly. Because the Lord has the above 8 attributes by virtue of his own independence, whereas the jIva attains moksha and manifests these attributes only by the grace of the Lord, and thus the apahatapApmatva, etc of jIva is dependent on the Lord. Certainly, the manifestation of these guNAs thus leads to infinite DBJ and experience of BrahmAnanda as per “sarvaM hA pashyaM pashyati:” and “sa ekadhA bhavati”, etc. PP: Just because both are satyasankalpa, just because both are jñāna ānanda ātmaka, concluding that they have equal bliss is similar to the following. (random blabber follows) SD: It is not because both are satya sankalpa. Rather, paramAtma is satya sankalpa by himself. But he fulfills the desire and resolve of the jIvA to serve him. Since he never says “no” to the jIvA, the jivA is “satya sankalpa” by his grace. If a child asks for a toy every month and the father buys him the toy without ever saying “no”, does it not mean that the child’s desires and wishes are fulfilled and the father’s wishes and desires (to satisfy the child) are fulfilled as well, making both satya sankalpas? Does that however mean the child himself has the power to do it? Does it not mean he is still totally powerless and dependent on his father, thus meaning he still has lesser status? Simple concept again. PP: Four kinds of mukti are described in śāstras - Sāyujya, Sārūpya, Sālokya and Sāmīpya. What they are referring is sārūpya. They may also have similar vaibhoga. All are similar only. No equal things. One who is only for kainkaryam even think of equality?

SD: Equality is not in status. Equality is in bhOga or enjoyment.sArUpya, sAlokya and sAmIpya are all contained in sAyujya. PP: Bhagavata does speak of kinds of mokṣa like Sāyujya, sārūpya, sālokya and sāmīpya (thus there are gradations in moksha). The śruti vākyas that speak of gradation of bliss pertains to muktas only, but not baddha-s. SD: ShrI vedAnta desikan clarifies that sAyujya is the true moksha and the other 3 are subsumed into it as stated by vedAnta desikan. They are just spoken of as separate for describing the aspect. Continued togetherness with Brahman happens in one place (sAloka), requires a form/qualities similar to Brahman, devoid of karma, etc (sArUpya), and nearness to Brahman since togetherness is interrupted in any place that is not moksha sthAna (sAmIpya). Gradation in bliss refers to baddhas, not muktas as proven earlier. There are exactly a grand total of zero pramANas in shAstra to support the dodgy position of mAdhvas. PP: aśarīro vāyurabhraṁ vidyutstanayitnuraśarīrāṇyetāni tadyathaitānyamuṣmādākāśātsamutthāya paraṁ jyotirupasaṁpadya svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyante || Chāndogya - 8-12-2 Because of their absorption in Bhagavān's darśana ānanda, they forget themselves and others. The Lord only gives this svarūpa ānanda āvirbhāva and appoints Mukhyprāṇa as his charioteer." SD: MukhyaprANa as charioteer? What sort of an interpretation is this? Anyway, this mantra was explained earlier in detail, so skipping it now. “prANa” there denotes the bound self closely associated with prANa by aprthak siddhi, not mukhyaprANa. PP: Why can't the 'example of different sacrifices yielding different pleasures be compared to mokṣa' ? Isn't the object of all the sacrifices God? That being the case, how can the objects of those sacrifices be different? Aren't the sacrifices based on vedas? They have to note the Kaṭhopaniṣat vākya –ETC.. SD: Ridiculous argument. Because the sacrifices are carried out in this world for different ends. Brahman may be the ultimate object of the sacrifices in the sense that eventually by performing jyOtishtOma frequently, one’s karmas might get cleansed and he might start thinking “svarga is temporary, let me try to attain Brahman”. And of course, Brahman bestows the fruits of the sacrifice too. But the aspirants of low intellect do not do these yAgas to seek Brahman, they do it to seek petty fruits. We are talking about immediate fruits like svarga, long life, etc which are different phalas sought by the aspirants. For a person desiring svarga, Brahman is not the object of the sacrifice, and the person may not even know that Brahman is the one bestowing the fruits of sacrifice. For such an aspirant, svarga is the be-all and end-all as the goal. Hence, different sacrifices have different phalas and hence there is bhEda. Brahman on the contrary, is the only goal of all means (bhakti and prapatti) and thus there are no distinctions. And indeed, if the sacrificers all think Brahman is to be attained by the sacrifices, then they attain equality of result because the goal sought is the same.

PP: Then they claim that the mukti is available for all. This means that they are claiming that Lord Krishna is a liar as He clearly says in Bhagavadgīta - "Oh tormentor of the enemies, those who do not trust this knowledge, will not attain me and struggle in the ways of the mrutyu rūpa saMsāra." "These cruel haters, worst of men, I always throw them into saMsāra (cycles of birth and death) and into demonical wombs. Then O Kunti's son, these fools, having acquired the demonical wombs, recursively every birth, never reach me and attain the abysmal hellish realms." From this, it is crystal clear that mukti is not available to all. SD: Mukti won’t be available to those who continue to hate the Lord due to contracted DBJ and accrue further karmas making their DBJ contracted still further, and rolling round in samsAra permanently. This verse has nothing to do with stating “all jIvAs are eligible for mukti, though anAdi kAla karmas contracting DBJ may imply that all may not desire it”. PP: Further, claiming that those who do very great Bhakti like chaturmukha Brahma and those who do very little bhakti get same bliss in mokṣa and even worse claiming that the haters of the Lord also get that same bliss will attribute "vaiṣamya doṣa" (flaw of partiality in Lord. "sameṣu viṣamabuddhi" or "viṣameṣu samabuddhi" is vaiṣamya doṣa. Treating as per what they deserve is real samabuddhi. SD: Except that Brahma, etc do upAsaNa due to ego and pride in their own strength and “more effort” is actually an inferior path to “less effort”. It is not a better path, but one that exists for those who due to ahamkAra cannot resort to sharanAgati. An explanationof this requires a long elaboration of bhakti yoga and prapatti, so I will skip this. The Narayanastra Blog touches on this concept in some articles. The lesser the effort, the more the dependence on the Lord’s grace, the lesser the ego. That’s the gist and all that I will deign to explain here. That is shAstra vidhi actually. The mAdhvAs believe in earning bliss through proportional strength of sAdhana which is contrary to shAstra. PP: Further the gradation of bliss in mokṣa is also clearly stated in Brahma sutra "OM vṛddhihrāsabhāktvamantarbhāvādubhayasāmañjasyādevam OM" "There is increase and decrease (gradation) in bliss due to difference in jñāna and bhakti, for only then impartiality of the Lord towards both would be seen". When a question comes "Why is that so?", that is answered by the next sūtra "OM darśanācca OM" "Because it is seen in the Vedas.".

So, if the Viśiṣṭādvaitins think that the statements of Taittirīya and Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣat vākyas are for baddha jīvas only, they should still concede that there should be some other Vedic statements that speak of gradation of bliss. SD: That sUtra does not talk about bliss. I’m too lazy to consult the actual sri bhAshya, so going to sacred texts should be enough to get a gist.The meaning according to shrI rAmAnuja is: The participation (of Brahman) in increase and decrease, due to its’ abiding within (is denied), on account of the appropriateness of both (comparisons) and because thus it is seen. (VS 3-2-20) For the text denies the previously declared so-muchness and declares more than that (VS 3-20-21) That (is) unmanifested for (veda) declares (VS 3-20-22). In a nutshell, it talks about Brahman being devoid of imperfections and vikAra despite indwelling in different objects. He is unchanging despite his pervasion. PP: If a point is made that the subject of Bhakti is God and so the bliss in mokṣa is same, then by the same logic, since the subject of yajñas is God and that too requires bhakti, then the fruits of all vedic yajñas must be the same. Are the Viśiṣṭādvaitins aware that the mokṣa sādhana also requires bodily means? Even they wont speak of mokṣa sādhane after reaching mokṣa. Isn't Bhagavān propounded by the Vedic yajñas ? There is double trouble here. It is a big logical loop-hole that 'Bhagavān is one and the same for all' does not imply that the outcome of bliss should be the same for all. Secondly accepting that just for a minute will lead to other difficulties like the Vedic yajñas should also yield the same result. SD: As mentioned before, the aim of doing sacrifices by different people based on different understanding is for different results. Not all do it for bhagavAn, though he is the granter of fruits. A person who desires svarga may have no idea of vishNu despite the latter alone being propitiated by jyothishthOma. Different sacrifices are done for different results, not for bhagavAn. Though he is the actual goal, that is neither known or desired by all. Hence, different experiences arise as they seek wealth, apsara stris, or svarga, etc. Not Brahman. This is a basic concept. In bhakti or prapatti, it is well known by all that the only goal to be attained is bhagavAn. Hence there is no gradation of bliss or results. Though bhakti yoga requires bodily means (upAsaNa) and sharanAgati is a mental act, it is accepted that even bhakti is “jnAna viSheshaNa” and moksha arises from knowledge primarily. Whatever sAdhana we do with body, etc according to Vishishtadvaita, is an expression of love and pales in significance to what Brahman can offer. Hence, if it is imagined as self-effort leading to moksha, it results in ahamkAra and is against the nature of the jIva. This will never be understood without a proper comprehension of bhakti yOga and prapatti.

PP: Isn't Bhakti required for kainkaryam as well ? What is their understanding of prapatti without Bhakti ? How can there be a true bhakti without proper jñāna ? If there is true jñāna, which encompasses true Bhakti, which inturn encompasses true prapatti, then that is a whole package. (--etc etc etc---long arguments on jnana, bhakti and prapatti follow) SD: The nature of bhakti and prapatti is too long to elaborate here, so I will skip it. One thing is clear, this author has ventured into a refutation of Vishishtadvaita without even understanding what is bhakti and prapatti in the tradition. But this fault is seen in the works of his gurus as well, so he cannot be blamed. PP: "BrahmAnandam is not exclusively enjoyed by Brahman only" - This is a meaningless statement because of the inherent ambiguity. What is meant by the expression Brahmanandam ? In case of Brahman, it is Brahmaṇaḥ Anandam. It is His own bliss. In case of others, it can mean the bliss obtained by thinking about Brahman and also that is also controlled by Brahman, given by Brahman, brought to experience by Brahman, etc. The Lord does not give His own bliss to others. The jīva does not have the capacity to experience his own bliss without the grace, control and approval of the Lord SD: This has been refuted sufficiently earlier. The bliss of the Lord is hiskalyANa guNas which both he and the muktas experience. His nature is also constituted by bliss. There is experience of bhagavad svarUpa-rUpa-guNa-vibhUti in moksha.Hence equality of bliss. PP: It is very strange that Viśiṣṭādvaita, which quite successfully pointed out many flaws of Advaita, is trying to take much weaker approach than Advaita. Without even the support of atleast a few glaringly apparent āgama vākyas (except for only one apparent statement "paramam sāmyamupaiti"), they are trying to advocate a major concept of equal bliss as the Lord for every jīva including the eternal haters of the Lord. That statement not only has other meaning like 'just similarity', but not equality, the equality interpretation goes against many other pramāṇa-s. The examples that they have chosen are more damaging to their position itself. I have elaborately pointed out the flaw in wife and husband example. The same kind of flaw decorates student-teacher example and sonfather example. Heavy confusion is introduced by using expressions like one enjoying the other's guṇa-s. In an eagerness to justify the example, one enjoying the other's guṇa-s is interpreted as one approving the other's guṇa-s. SD: It is also strange that Dvaita, for all its professed logical excellence, has such a poor understanding of vishishtadvaita as a purvapakSha. The author also does not understand the analogies properly and tries to deliberately stretch it to the point where he almost claims saying “This man is like a lion” implies the “man = lion” and forgetting that paramAtma as a husband is a different proposition than a normal husband! This tirade however, does not stand based on the pramANAs already provided. An inadequate interpretation of Anandavalli and some random portions of brahma sUtrAs is all the mAdhvas have to show for Ananda tAratamya. PP: There is not a single pramāṇa that says that jīva is the śarIra of Brahman.

SD: Really? How very nice for you then. PP: Very strange argument in deed. Let us list what is being said 1. Perumal is described as "Madhu". 2. He derives anandA from His own nature 3. But, we can enjoy it as well 4. just as we enjoy the qualities of Madhu Is this for real ? How can the above set prove that our joy is the same as Perumal's joy SD: Hmm, I don’t get what the author is refuting here. e is called “madhu” as we drink his guNas like honey. The sweetness of honey is not coming from us, ie, it is external, is it not? Yet, we taste honey and enjoy its’ sweetness. Similarly, bhagavAn is honey and we “taste” his sweetness. Being sentient, he himself enjoys his own sweetness. With infinite DBJ, this is “Ananda sAmyaM”. Is there anything even remotely complicated about this? Let me answer that as well - No. What the Viśiṣṭādvaitins did was labelling the pure devotees that were before Sri Rāmānuja as "Alwars" and falsely interpreted their works to suit the Viśiṣṭādvaita position. Kulasekhara Maharaja was never called ālwar before the advent of Sri Rāmānuja SD: The author barely has a knowledge of vishishtadvaita, and has been making useless arguments like “dehanAsha of Brahman due to sharIrAtma bhAva” and other such nonsense , so it is quite unclear with what courage now he takes pot shots at the azhwars and acharyas. His claim is pretty stupid, considering that we derive the entire philosophy from the divya prabandham which in turn is in total conformity with the Vedas. And did he know that the Kulasekhara Maharaja who authored Mukunda mala stotra is different from the Kulasekhara Azhwar of “perumAl thirumozhi” fame? Or that long before yAmuna muni (let alone srI rAmAnuja), it was sriman nAthamuni who collected the divya prabandha and established our lineage with the azhwars? Not even worth refuting. Maintain civility and respect for opponents, stick to Sanskrit works and do not even try to wade into waters whose depth you cannot gauge. Otherwise, you will be burnt like a moth in a flame. Pfft. PP: This is in Antaryāmi brāhmaṇa yaḥ pṛthivyām tiṣṭhan pṛthivyā antaro, yam pṛthivī na veda, yasya pṛthivī śarīram, yaḥ pṛthivīmantaro yamayati eṣa te ātmā antaryāmyamṛtam | - Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣat 3-7-2 (One who stays inside Pṛthivi, One who is different from Pṛthivi,

Whom Pṛthivi did not comprehend, in Whose control they exist like a body, One Who is inside as Antaryami or Inner-controller, He is alsoyour Inner-controller and Eternal Inner-controller of all). ….. The basic concept is that it is about Sarvāntryāmitva. What has this to do with refuting jīva traividhya? SD: At last, an acceptance of the fact that Shastra does say “sharIra” with respect to prithvi and Atma! How nice. Do you not see that the essential nature of the self itself has a lot to do with the fact that it is a sharIra of paramAtma? “sharIra” does not mean merely dwelling inside, as that is conveyed by“yaḥ pṛthivyām tiṣṭhan pṛthivyā antaro…”. The implications are that just as a body supported by, controlled by and exists for the sake of the self, the jIva is supported by, controlled by and exists for the sake of paramAtma. That makes “seshatva” the essential nature of all jIvAs. The jIvA, being a “sarIra”, is said to be: 1) AdheyatvA (i.e. being supported by a sarIrI): Existence of the sarIrA (jIva) is due to the sarIrI (paramAtma) i.e. sarIrI supports the sarIrA. In other words, without a sarIrI, sarIrA ceases to exist. 2) niyamyatvA (i.e. being controlled by a sarIrI): Not only that sarIrA (jIva) derives its existence from a sarIrI (paramAtma), it is also being controlled by the sarIrI. So, sarIrA acts as per the will/desires of sarIrI. 3) seshatvA(i.e. existing for the pleasure of sarIrI): Not only that sarIrA (jIva) is supported and controlled by sarIrI (paramAtma), it exists only to be used for the pleasure/will of sarIrI, i.e. sarIrI is sarIrA's Master and the sarIra is his servant. This is the essential nature of the sarIra. It refutes jIva svarUpa bhEda because the statement is that all jIvAs are the body of Brahman. Thus, the essential nature of a body is to be subservient to the self and exist for the will of the self. So, all jIvAs, being the body of Brahman, are all equally dependent on him, supported by him and subservient to him, making this subservience, ie, “seshatva” to Brahman, the essential nature of all jIvAs. Just as the body exists only to serve the self, the sentient jIvAs by nature, exist to willingly serve him. And since they are all seshas by nature, serving him willingly and existing only for his will, they cannot be “rAjasic” or “tAmasic” in svarUpa itself. Differences are only due to karmas. Realization of the essential nature as seshatva destroys karmas. Prakrti is also a body of Brahman, but as it is insentient, it just exists to be used by him according to his will. Dvaitins interpret it as “in whose control they exist like a body” rather than a straightforward acceptance of jIva being the body of Brahman. As I mentioned before,

1) Even if sharIrAtma bhAva taken as a metaphor and not literal, viz., paramAtma controls the jIva like a body (sharIra), it means that the jIva, like a body, is subservient to, dependent on, controlled by and exists because of paramAtma. This in turn means, like a body, the jIva is a sesha by nature to paramAtma. Thus, all jIvAs are identical in svarUpa (seshas) and it yields the same meaning regardless of whether it is literal or figurative, since the body always serves the self! 2) Despite the above, “SharIra” is to be taken as literal as it talks of sarvAntaryAmitvaM. Subala Upanishad also states that the Lord has everything as his body, and justifies the Lord as “apahatapApma” in relation to being “sarvabhUtAntarAtma”. The shruti thus takes pains to show the Lord is unaffected by being the “sharIrin” due to being devoid of karma and on account of having everything as “sharIra”, he is “sarvabhUtAntarAtma”, and the purpose behind such a declaration is only because he is literally associated with everything as his body. And lastly, let us not forget these helpful pramANAs, “tAni sarvAni tat vapu:” [vishNu purANa 1-22-86] --- Everything is his body (vapu) “tat sarvam vai harEs tanu: [vishNu purANa 1-22-38] – All this is the body (tanu) of Hari. “jagat sarvam sareeram tE” [vAlmiki ramAyaNa yuddha khANDa 20-26] – The entire Universe is his body. “yadambu vaiShnavaH kAyastato vipra vasundharA padmAkAra samudbhUtA parvatAbdhyAdisamyutA” [ vishNu purANa 2.17.37] From the waters which form the body of vishNu was produced the lotus shaped earth with its’ seas and mountains. [Note the usage of “kAya” in the above slOka. By “waters”, what is meant is the entire Universe which has arisen from “waters” or the subtle elements, which is the body of the Lord.] Usage of “tanu”, “vapu”, “kAya” also shows that “sharIrAtma bhAva” is literal and not metaphorical. PP: A big fall. The body is jaḍa. How can a jaḍa have willingness? SD: shrI rAmAnuja has patiently clarified the definition of a body. The definition of a body is one that is supported by, dependent on and subservient to the self. Anything that conforms to these 3 rules is a body. It does not have to be “jaDa” only, since the shAstra itself declares “yasya Atma sharIraM’ as well. Both sentients and insentients are the body of Brahman. A body serves the self and exists solely for the self by its’ very nature.It has no other purpose. So the sentientjIva which is the body of paramAtma, serves paramAtma willingly as its’ very nature is to exist for the sake of paramAtma. Any unwillingness is due to karmas contracting DBJ and thus, is said to be against the essential nature of the jIva, just as there cannot be a body that doesn’t serve the self or

exists independently of the self.Prakrti is also the body of the Lord, has no sentience and hence, it merelyexists to be used as per the will of paramAtma (since only a sentient being can willinglyoffer “kainkarya” or services). The author writes on his website (https://sites.google.com/site/madhwaprameyaqa/home/kesavarao) as follows - We criticize the Visishtadvaita sharIra-sharIrin (body-soul) model, because in the case of the body & soul, not only is the body dependent on the soul, but the soul cannot do anything without the body. There is reciprocal dependence! Half of this is true in the case of paramAtma residing within the jIva--without paramAtma, the jIva would cease to function. However paramAtma is not dependent on the jIva the way a soul is dependent on the body. Where does Vishishtadvaita admit “reciprocal dependence”? Did you get that from your imagination? The Lord is devoid of karmas and hence, he is not dependent on the body. Dependence of the self on the body arises only due to karmas. You understand that the body cannot do anything without the self. Good, that is one outcome of sharIrAtma bhAva and thus it renders your Bimba-Pratibimba theory redundant. But you fail to understand that the body also exists *solely* for the sake of the self, whereas the vice versa is not true. “Existing for the sake of the self” is nothing but seshatva which is the essential nature of the body (jIva), for it has no purpose other than that for existence. All jIvAs are his body, thus all have identical essential natures. And anything which by its’ very nature exists for the sake of paramAtma, cannot have inherent tamas or rajas or be evil by nature, so all jIvAs are mukta yogyas. Willingness to serve paramAtma in the case of a sentient being is thus natural, as it is nothing but existing for his sake only. Ever heard of a body rebelling against the self? If you decide to move yourself to another place, would your body fail to obey you? Never. Only when the jIva is under karmas does it not understand its’ true nature. (And don’t bring up diseased bodies, which is like a jIva under karma; just saying as I am aware you have a penchant for the ridiculous). PP: Regarding Sarvam ha pasya: pasyathi SarvamApnOthi Sarvasa: Here Sarva does not mean "every thing". That is not even the purpose. Here Sarva refers to the Lord. Note that Viṣṇu Sahasra nāma also has "sarvaḥ śarvaḥ śivaḥ sthāṇuḥ.." Secondly, the context also calls for such an interpretation - the jīva seeing the Lord, obtaining/reaching the Lord. SD: That interpretation is patently and absurdly wrong. It’s like saying since “Agni” is the name of the Lord, when we say “Sita entered the fire during agni-pariksha”, it means “Sita entered the Lord and was not burnt by the Lord” since there is a pramANa saying “Agni” is a name of the Lord. That is “not even the purpose”, huh? Wonder how the author arrives at this conclusion. Fine, I will explain this. It will be shown that the author’s interpretation is wrong as per pramANAs and also logically.

First, the pramANas. Unfortunately for the author, there are upabrahmaNas for this mantra in the Lakshmi Tantra of the pAncharAtra agama, as follows: vedhaso yatra modante shaMkarAH sapurandarAH | sUrayo nityasaMsiddhAH sarvadA (sarvajnA) sarvadarshinaH || (~Lakshmi Tantra 17:18) (In some recensions, “sarvadA” is replaced by “sarvajnA”) Meaning: There the Brahmas, Shankaras and Indras (samsArIs who attained mukti) and the eternally liberated ones, ie, nitya sUrIs (surayO nityasamsiddha), all rejoice (in the experience of the Lord) and are ever omniscient (or, are omniscient and perceive/experience all auspicious attributes). This dialogue occurs in the seventeenth chapter of the Lakshmi Tantra (rahasyOpAya prakASha adhyAya) in the section on “paramapada svarUpaM”, where it is first clearly established that the topic of discussion is the description of the supreme abode. The entire relevant portion of the section will be quoted and explained later on in the nitya sUri section of this document. For now, this sloka will do. “sUrayO nityasamsiddhAH” –. Those jnAnIs whose sAdhaNa is eternally accomplished, or those who are eternally contented – this refers to the nitya sUrIs. Besides Lakshmi, Ananta, Garuda and Vishvaksena, there are many nitya sUrIs like Gajanana, Kumudha, Kumudhaksha, the dvArapAlakas, the apsarAs, etc. The Agamas reference them in places by name. “sUrayO nityasamsiddhAH” should be taken together as opposed to “sUrayaH” and “nityasamsiddhAH” being separate, as even the brahmAs, rudrAs, etc are sUris. “sarvadA (sarvajnA) sarvadarShiNaH” – In some recensions, “sarvadA” is replaced by “sarvajnA”. If taken as “sarvajnA sarvadarShiNaH” – It means “they are omniscient (sarvajnA) and on account of that, perceive, ie, experience (sarvadarShinaH) all attributes of the Lord as per “soshnutE sarvAn kAman…” If it is taken as “sarvadA sarvadarshinaH”, it means they are ever omniscient (sarvadarShinaH), as their DBJ never again gets contracted due to karmas. The majority of recensions contain “sarvajnA” however. Note that “sarvadarShiNaH” does not mean they see “Sarva”, the Lord here. Because, firstly, in the sloka preceding this, Lakshmi says “ekAntino mahAbhAgA yatra pashyanti nau sadA” (~ Lakshmi Tantra 17.17) – “the ekAntins in the supreme abode always see me (Lakshmi) and Narayana”. In addition, the first line of the slOka immediately following this one says says “vaiShnavaM paramaM rUpaM sAkshAtkurvanti yatra tE” (Lakshmi Tantra 17.19) which thus separately declares these liberated jIvAs (the muktas and the nitya sUrIs) are seeing the supreme nature of vishNu. Thus interpreting “sarvadarShinaH” as “they see the Lord (sarva)” in that manner is redundant and it only refers to omniscience or expanded DBJ here. “sarvadA:” implies this omniscience is eternal as there will be no more contractions of DBJ due to karmas. And if taken as “sarvajnA” instead of “sarvadA”, then the meaning is even more explicit. In such a case, “sarvadarShinaH” is clarifying that on account of omniscience (sarvajnA), there is cognition of *all attributes* (sarvadarShinaH), since there is no end to the Lord’s attributes, as opposed to limited

enjoyment.This would again avoid the flaw of redundancy in comparison to the previous and succeeding slOkas which have respectively clarified that the the Lord with Lakshmi and the Lord’s nature, is experienced in moksha. By mentioning there are many Brahmas, Rudras and Indras, etc, it is not implied that there is some “tAratamya” or that the liberated selves have identities of these gods even in moksha. The logic is simple. When someone says “my grandfather is in heaven”, it does not mean that liberated jIva exists as his grandfather now. The term “grandfather” applied to the self only when associated with the grandfather body and this body was cast off prior to attaining heaven. However, to identify that the self which was in the grandfather body has attained heaven, it is mentioned that “grandfather is in heaven”. So, this only means that as Lakshmi is teaching Indra here, she is implying that moksha is filled with jIvAs who were formerly the Brahmas, Rudras and Indras of the world. Indra himself is a deva, so she uses the examples of devas to show that they eventually attain moksha.It does not mean they remain Brahmas, Indras or Rudras there, as such identities are cast off before attaining liberation. It also does not mean only those who were Brahmas, Rudras and Indras in samsAra are there, but includes all beings who performed sAdhaNa of bhakti yOga or prapatti. That will be mentioned later in later slOkAs of the section. Brahma, Rudra and Indra are the topmost beings in samsAra, so Lakshmi mentions them to clarify that the jIvAs occupying these topmost positions in samsAra attained mukti. It highlights the insignificance of brahma-padavi, etc in comparison to moksha. Then, Lakshmi distinguishes these muktAs from the “sUrayO nityasamsiddhAs” or the nitya sUrIs who are eternally liberated. Basically, she is saying, “Look Indra, millions of jIvAs who were Brahmas, Rudras and Indras like you are there now in moksha having been liberated by their upAsaNa, in addition to the nitya sUrIs. They are all omniscient and enjoying all of the Lord’s guNAs”. Now, that is one pramANa. There is one more in the Lakshmi Tantra as seen previously. Reproducing it here: ShuddhavidyAsamAyogAt saMkocaM yajjahAtyasou| tadA pradyotamAno.ayaM sarvato muktabandanaH|| j~nAnakriyAsamAyOgAt sarvavitsarvakR^itsadA| anaNushcApyasaMkocAnmadbhAvAyopapadyatE||(~Lakshmi Tantra 13.31-32) Meaning: When in consequence ofpure knowledge (of the form of direct perception), the jIva discards its’ limitations (being freed of karmas), then freed from every shackle (in mukti), it illumines or shines (signifying expansion of DBJ). In consequence of the union of jnAna (knowledge) and kriya (execution of that knowledge, ie, anuShtAna), it (upon liberation), becomes omniscient (sarvavith), capable of all actions, ie, assuming infinite bodies and experiencing infinite objects of enjoyment (sarvakrt), and

since all fetters have been removed, in acquiring my form (ie, form of the Lord inseparable with Lakshmi) of the 8 attributes of apahatapApma, etc, it is even said to become “anaNu” or that which is not “aNu”, (ie, “Brahman” or great in terms of characteristics). These slOkas were quoted and explained earlier. One cannot interpret “sarva” in “sarvavith” or “sarvakrt” as “The Lord named Sarva” because the slOka is clearly an opposite of the previous one (in chapter 7 of Lakshmi Tantra quoted in an earlier section) declaring the baddha as “kinchijjna”, “kinchitkara”, etc. Thus, “sarvavith” and “sarvakrt” are characteristics of the mukta, which are opposites of “kincijjna” and “kinchitkara” that are characteristics of the baddha which was due to “jnAnasaMkocha” on association with prakrti and hence, the “Sarva” here refers to “all” or “everything” only. Because of this, it is also not feasible to say that the jIva becomes a “knower of the Lord known as Sarva” in mukti, for the jIva is a knower of Brahman/shAstrAs before he even attains mukti and such knowledge is required to attain mukti. So, these are the pramANAs which refutes the author’s interpretation. Now, let us proceed to the logical part. This will be a rather long explanation, but it should clear any doubts over “sarvaM” referring to “all” as opposed to denoting the Lord, so it is necessary. The dvaitin’s interpretation is not just wrong by way of pramANAs, but is also contextually wrong whichever way you slice it. Names have a context where they can be used. We of the Narayanastra blog know that well, having used names in various contexts countless times. The context of the Upanishad is to talk about the activities of the mukta jIva, which was established. What is the context here? Check out the statement: tadeSha shloko na pashyo mR^ityuM pashyati na rogaM nota duHkhatA{\m+} sarva{\m+} ha pashyaH pashyati sarvamApnoti sarvasha iti sa ekadhA bhavati tridhA bhavati pa~nchadhA saptadhA navadhA chaiva punashchaikAdashaH smR^itaH shataM cha dasha chaikashcha sahasrANi cha vi{\m+}shatirAhArashuddhau sattvashuddhau dhruvA smR^itiH smR^itilambhe sarvagranthInAM vipramokShastasmai mR^iditakaShAyAya tamasaspAraM darshayati Meaning: The seer of Brahman will not suffer from death, illness and sorrow. That seer sees everything. He will obtain everything from every side according to his will. He can assume one form, three forms or five forms. He can likewise assume seven forms or nine forms and again eleven forms, hundred forms and ten forms or one thousand forms or twenty forms. If the food that is taken is pure,

his mind is pure. When the mind is pure, the meditation on Ishvara will be steady. When constant meditation is gained all knots of the heart in the form of ignorance, desires etc get destroyed. The entire set of statements talk about the activities of the mukta jIva, with the final statements being injunctions to the mummukshu (seeker of moksha). “paShya” itself here means “brahmadarShi” – One who sees Brahman. Hedoes not see death or anything else that leads to sorrow, in the sense that the world will not be disagreeable to a mukta as he feels no sorrow or disease, being free of karma. Thus, the first line itself establishes the mukta: 1) is called “paShya” as he sees Brahman, 2) feels no sorrow on account of that. Hence, one cannot say the next sentence “sarvaM ha paShyaHpaShyati:” means “He sees the Lord who is called Sarva” because of two reasons: 1) Firstly, the statements succeeding “sarvaM ha paShyaH pashyati:” claim that the mukta assumes infinite bodies (sa ekadhAbhavati…). A jIva is aNu in svarUpa. It is always localized in one place. It is only paramAtma who is vibhu and can exist simultaneously in several places at once. That being the case, how can the jIva assume infinite number of bodies? It can only be by his DBJ. The jIva remains in one body, but his DBJ pervades the otherbodies and thus controls them, experiencing the experiences of those bodies as well while remaining in one body. This is unlike Brahman, who being infinite in svarUpa as well as DBJ, can physically and literally exist in all the bodies. In samsAra itself, we can control a limited number of bodies of varying numbers if our DBJ expands, as seen in the case of Saubhari Muni, Devas, etc…but to control an infinite number of bodies, we need DBJ to be infinitely expanded, which is in moksha, and thus “sarvaM ha pashya pashyati:” denotes this omniscience according to the context.This is discussed by srI rAmAnuja in the srI bhAshya. (Note that even knowledge of purva janmAs for some rishis is due to extended DBJ, whereas we cannot remember it due to contracted DBJ. Similarly, the greater the expansion of DBJ, the more bodies you can control). 2) Secondly, since the very word “paShya” is used in the context of a mukta jIva here,it implies a brahmadarShi and hence interpreting “sarvaM” as the Lord is redundant. Meaning, it is redundant to say “the liberated Seer of Brahman sees the Lord named sarvaM” because him seeing the Lord is self-evident by the usage of “paShya”. Besides, it is clear that the entire statement talks about *the activities of the mukta who sees Brahman* as opposed to simply *clarifying that the mukta sees/obtains Brahman in moksha*. So, “sarvam ha paShyaH paShyati:” is only indicating omniscience of the mukta. Thus, it should be interpreted as “The brahmadarSi (mukta who has realized/sees Brahman) sees all, ie, is omniscient”. To Point 2), the opponent may question that in the shruti there are vAkyas like “yadA pashyaH pashyate rukmavarNaM kartAramIshaM puruShaM brahmayonim.h”, whereit is said that the “Seer of Brahmansees Brahman” in this mundakOpanishad vAkya and so a flaw of redundancy as argued cannot be applied here.

To that, the reply is as follows. In the above quoted shruti, “pashyatIti pashya:” – this refers to a seer of Brahman in samsAra. The shruti also follows this up by specifying what aspect of the Lord he is specially seeing (meditating on), namely, “rukmavarNaM”, ie, the non-material body of the Lord designated as purusha, as well as him being the creator of the Universe, etc.So, here, the shruti clarifies that the Seer of Brahman in samsAra is seeing (meditating on) the auspicious body of the Lord named Purusha. There is no redundancy in this context because the object of meditation qualifying the Lord (ie, his divine body and other attributes) is specified in a clear manner as opposed to simply saying “The Seer of Brahman sees the Lord named Purusha”, thus there is a meaning and significance attached. Furthermore, since this refers to a baddha jIva in samsAra, it makes sense to clarify that a Seer of Brahman in samsAra is necessarily meditating on the divine body of the Lord to free himself of sin, thus highlighting the sin destroying nature of the Lord’s divya mangala vigraha, in addition to understanding the Lord as jagatkAraNa and meditating on such attributes to attain moksha. However, in “sarvaM ha paShya paShyati:”, it is already clarified that “paShya” here refers to a mukta jIva by the statement “na paShyo mR^ityuM pashyati na rogaM nota duHkhatA”. The preceding mantra also specified meditation on the antaryAmin as the means to mukti. Therefore, it is redundant to specify that the “Liberated Seer of Brahman sees Brahman named Sarva” because the mukta has attained liberation by “seeing”, ie, meditating on Brahman only, and it is self-evident thus that he is meditating on/obtaining Brahman in moksha. Additionally, a third reason for saying “sarvaM ha pashyaM pashyati:” refers to omniscience can be provided. Saying “The Seer of Brahman in Moksha sees Brahman named Sarva” as the dvaitins do is also redundant unless a qualifying attribute is provided. We saw in the shruti “yadA pashyaH pashyate rukmavarNaM”, describing a baddha jIva meditating on Brahman, a qualifying attribute of “rukmavarNaM”, the divine body of the Lord named puruSha, is provided as the object of meditation. Similarly, we see statements like “tad visnoH paramaM padam sadA pashyanti sUraya:” –here, it means “the wise liberated ones see the abode of vishNu perpetually”. The term “sura” means a knower of Brahman (jnAni) and hence it can be said “knower of Brahman sees vishNu/his abode (by meditation)”. Here, the qualifying attribute of “sadA” is provided to show that the muktAs and nityAs are special in the sense that they see the abode of vishNu eternally and unceasingly, as opposed to baddha jIvAs whose meditation can be interrupted. If “paramaM padaM” is taken as sri vaikuntha, then it too is a qualifying attribute, as only muktAs and nityAs can see this abode unceasingly. In contrast, for “sarvaM ha pashyaM pashyati:” when interpreted as referring to the Lord known as “sarva”, it doesn’t even say “sarvaM sadA pashyati” to highlight that muktas can see “Sarva” the Lord uninterruptedly, but only says “sarvaM ha paShyaH paShyati” which if interpreted as “the seer of Brahman sees the Lord called Sarva”, is even a trait of jnAnis in samsAra. The Lord can even be seen by baddhas in his vibhava and archa forms, hence, there is no point in saying one sees the Lord in moksha without a qualifying attribute like “sadA”. There is not even a qualifying attribute equivalent to “rukamavarNaM” or “sadA” such to indicate whether the mukta sees something special. And why particularly Sarva nAmaka paramAtma?Why not Agni, Indra, VishNu, etc? Names have a context as follows:

-

In the shruti “yadA pashyaH pashyate rukmavarNaM kartAramIshaM puruShaM”, the name of the Lord - “puruSha” - is used in conjunction with “rukmavarNaM” to highlight that “rukmavarNaM” is synonymous to “AdityavarNaM” of the Purusha in the Purusha sUktam. This is the context of calling the Lord as “puruSha” here.

-

In the statement “tad visnoH paramaM padaM…”, it is said that the muktAs and nityAs see the abode of the Lord named “vishNu”. This name according to Bhattar, serves to highlight the guNa of “vyApti”. This guNa in turn, indicates that by virtue of pervasion, the relationship with the Lord and the jIvAs is like that of fire and smoke – where there is smoke, there is fire, but the reverse is not true (as in the case of a red hot iron rod). Similarly, by his pervasion, he makes the jIvAs exist, but his existence does not depend on the jIvAs. So, by using the name vishNu, the mantra highlights the fact that the muktAs and nityAs are seeing the abode of the Lord by his grace, ie, they are dependent on him for their experiences while he is independent.

Similarly,if it be said the mukta sees the Lord who is known as “sarvaM” as the dvaitins think, what is the context?The Lord is called “sarva” because he is the cause of creation and destruction of all beings. The mahAbhArata says that the Lord is “sarva” because he is the origin and end of all beings and is omniscient. “sarva” can also mean he is guNapUrNa or all-pervasive. So, the name serves to highlight the jagatkAraNatva and sarvajnatva as well as guNapUrNatva of the Lord. There is no context for saying a mukta specially sees the Lord as jagatkAraNa and sarvajna in moksha, since these qualities of the Lord are displayed by him and are seen by jnAnis in samsAra as well. Same goes for his guNapUrNatva or vyApagatva, which even samsAri jnAnIs understand. Lastly, if “sarvaM” only denotes the Lord, why is it then repeated “”he sees the Lord named Sarva, he obtains/reaches the Lord named Sarva”?For “seeing” (pashyati) when used in conjunction with the Lord, refers to meditation on his auspicious attributes, which is synonymous to “obtaining” the Lord as well in moksha. It could be valid if it said, “he attains the Lord in paramapada, he sees the Lord”, as the trait of attaining the Lord in paramapada (as opposed to worlds within samsAra) is clarified. But that is not the case here.So, it makes no sense to say he sees the Lord, he obtains the Lord, for statements like “sadA pashyanti sUraya:” and “soShnutE sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNa vipascita” are synonymous as they refer to seeing (meditation) and obtainment of the auspicious attributes of the Lord in moksha. Thus, it is redundant to say “he sees the Lord, he obtains/reaches the Lord”, for both have the same meaning in moksha sthAna. Unless a qualifying attribute is there, which there isn’t.To this effect, we have the following possible scenarios: 1) It cannot be said that the intent of repetition is to show that it signifies a mukta as opposed to a samsAri, for that it is a mukta is clarified already by “na pashyo mR^ityuM pashyati na rogaM nota duHkhatA”. 2) It cannot also be said that the intent of repetition is to differentiate and show that a mukta both sees (meditates on) and obtains the Lord physically, as opposed to a samsAri who can meditate, but does not necessarily obtain the Lord, because, the context of the preceding mantra itself

was meditation to attain the Lord, indicating that this mantra is talking about what happens after such attainment.Secondly, a baddha can also physically attain the Lord in his vyuha and kArya vaikunta lOkas by puNya, so it cannot be said this is a difference unless the shAstra had specified “sarvaM sadA Apnoti” or something like that for a mukta, which it has not. 3) It is also clear that the intent of the mantra is not to clarify that moksha is sAyujya and thus say the mukta sees the Lord and obtains him separately, since in that case, it would have sufficed to say “the mukta who is a Seer of Brahman (pashya) attains (Apnoti) Sarva”, rather than saying “The Mukta who is a Seer of Brahman sees Sarva, attains Sarva”, which again leads to the redundancy of saying he sees the Lord twice. 4) Neither can it be said that “as a consequence of seeing (meditation), the mukta obtains/reaches the Lord”, because the previous mantra 7.26.1 already outlined how an upAsaka should meditate on the antaryAmin, which implies that in this particular mantra, the consequence of such meditation that one becomes a mukta is highlighted with a description of the activities of the mukta post-meditation and when he has already obtained/reached the Lord. 5) It cannot also be said that the mantra is clarifying that the jIva sees (meditates on) nothing else but the Lord only in moksha and that the Lord is the sole object of attainment in moksha by saying “he sees the Lord, he obtains the Lord”, for that has already been amply made clear in the preceding mantra which enjoined meditation on the Lord as the antaryAmin for moksha, with this mantra being referred to as an exposition of the same concept by “tadEsha sloko…” and calling the mukta a “brahmadarShi” (paShya). 6) Nor can one distinguish between “seeing/meditating on the Lord” and “obtaining/reaching the Lord” in moksha as distinct activities, for both are the same in paramapada which is sAyujya moksha and includes within it sAlokya, sAmIpya and sArUpya – the mukta has obtained theunion and experience (meditation) of the auspicious qualities of the Lord (soSnutE sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNa vipascita). Thus, the flaw of redundancy in the mAdhva interpretation is established in this manner as well. To the above, the opponent may finally quote the jAbala shruti which says: “And this released individual self who has attained to Brahman in this world of heaven has no birth, no death, no decrease, no increase, but is always in the same unshaken state of blessedness, always seeing Brahman as the highest and contemplating on him as the Lord; for this one who sees and contemplates Brahman forever, there is neither increase or decrease.” The opponent may argue that here, it is said the individual self attains Brahman, sees Brahman. Can not “sarvaM hA paShya paShyati:, sarvaM Apnoti” the same?

To that, the answer is no, it cannot. That jAbala shruti firstly does not denote the mukta as “pashya”, so there is a reason for specifiying that the mukta first attains the Lord in paramapada and then sees (meditates) on him for ever. Secondly, the “attainment” of the Lord is clearly specified to be in the world of paramapada for a mukta, thus differentiating him from baddhas who can attain worlds of the Lord such as kArya vaikunta. So, “attainment” is mentioned here in the sense of reaching the eternal world. Thirdly, “seeing” the Lord is qualified by “always”, which is the qualifying attribute distinguishing the mukta from baddhas. Ie, it shows the mukta’s meditation on the Lord is uninterrupted unlike the baddhas, the mukta is forever seeing him as the Lord (whereas baddhas are not always cognizant of their seshatva to Brahman) and as the Highest (baddhas also are not always cognizant of him as selfestablished). Also note, the qualities meditated on “contemplating on him as the Lord and Highest” are related to the realization of seshatvaM and “always” signifies this is uninterrupted. Thus, the attributes mentioned here are relevant for a mukta unlike the dvaitin’s interpretation of “sarva”. “sarvaM ha pashya:” does not have such qualifying attributes as mentioned earlier. “sarvaM Apnoti” does not mean “attain the Lord”, but means “attains all” because of the same reason. Context not only does not support interpreting “sarvaM” as the Lord, but the succeeding mantras on the mukta assuming infinite bodies also refute such an interpretation. And hence, it is logical to interpret “sarvaM” as omniscience only. The whole set of statements only refer to a brahmadarSi who has attained infinite DBJ to serve Brahman. Look at the preceding mantra as well to see how the context suits the Vishishtadvaitic interpretation. The preceding mantra (7.26.1) talks about knowing or meditating on the Atman that is the antaryAmin of all (ahaMgrahOpAsaNa). Therefore, this mantra already establishes that an upAsaka, who attains mukti, is a Seer of Brahman and is seeing Brahman in this manner. So, there is no need for mantra 7.26.2 to clarify that the mukta sees/obtains the Lord, for this mantra is an exposition of the previous (7.26.1) as evidenced by the former starting with “tadEsha shloko…” It talks about what such a seer of Brahman does in moksha. So, even the preceding mantra is contextually aligned with the Vishishtadvaitic interpretation. Names are used with a context. Refer the Narayanastra blog, we have elaborated on the intent behind usage of names. Shruti doesn’t randomly throw names about and the mAdhva interpretation of sarvaM as the Lord is quite random and doesn’t fit the context as demonstrated above. The Vishishtadvaita interpretation is logically, contextually and grammatically correct. The reference to the Lord as “sarva” in accordance with “sarva sharvasshivas sthAnu”, by the way, does occur in shruti. It is used, for instance, to interpret “sarvo vai rudrastasmai rudrAya namo astu”, where clearly, the context of mentioning the Lord known as the destroyer of the disease of samsAra (Rudra), asthe one who creates and destroys the Universe, being jagatnirvAhaka (Sarva), is quite relevant, since the One who is jagatkAraNa alone can relieve us of samsAra dukha. Additionally, “sarva” refers to omniscience and by this quality, paramAtma knows all our samsAric sufferings, thus he is Rudra as he can alleviate them. Thereis thus, a clear premise for interpreting “sarva” in “sarvO vai rudrO” according to the sahasranAma here. Such a context is not present in the Chandogya Upanishad.

To summarise, it is first said that a mukta known as “pashya” is free of sorrow, death, etc.Thus,omniscience is a natural consequence of being freed of death, illness and sorrow which are the outcome of karmas contracting DBJ, which then expands infinitely. The context itself establishes, grammatically and logically, that “sarvam” means “all” and indicates omniscience. He obtains all he desires by his will. Ie, his will is satisified by Brahman, and hence he is said to obtain it by his will. What does he obtain? Experience of the infinite auspicious qualities of Brahman, which is his only desire in moksha.By omniscience, there is experience of infinite auspicious attributes.Remember the statement “sosnutE sarvAn kAmAn”, where the term “sarvAn kAmAn” refers to the auspicious attributes. This is a direct parallel. Further on now, let us study how interpreting “sarvaM” as “everything” suits the context further. What is the outcome of this omniscience and consequent experience of infinite kalyANa guNAs in moksha? The next few verses state that: sa ekadhA bhavati tridhA bhavati pa~nchadhA saptadhA navadhA chaiva punashchaikAdashaH smR^itaH shataM cha dasha chaikashcha sahasrANi cha vi{\m+}shatirAhArashuddhau sattvashuddhau dhruvA smR^itiH This says the mukta, upon experiencing brahma kalyANA guNAs, and feeling an outpouring of love for Brahman, assumes infinite number of bodies (ie, he controls infinite number of bodies by his infinite jnAna despite remaining aNu svarUpa) to serve the Lord at all times, states and places. Note this statement can only refer to the mukta jIva and not the Lord as all the verses clearly talk about the abilities of the mukta jIva. It is only by virtue of the infinite DBJ that a mukta can assume infinite number of bodies in moksha. The jIvA is aNu svarUpa and hence cannot be in several bodies at once, but controls several bodies by its’ DBJ while remaining in one body. paramAtma in contrast, has vibhu svarUpa and DBJ, and he can be in several bodies physically at once. Thus, the mention of the mukta assuming infinite number of bodies itself indicates the context of sarvaM as “omniscient”. Mere jIva svarUpa alone is not sufficient for this, as svarUpa is aNu and localized. So, we have a continuity of context  1) Karmas (causing sorrow, illness, death) are extinguished for a seer of Brahman, 2) mukta, a seer of Brahman, is thus omniscient on account of being free of karmas, 3) mukta obtains “all his desires”, ie, “experience of the infinite attributes of Brahman” by such omniscience, 4) mukta overcome by love on such experience of kalyANa guNAs, assumes infinite bodies with his infinite DBJ to experience and serve the Lord at all times, states and places. Servitude is the true nature of a jIva. So, a mukta experiences the lord and assumes infinite bodies by his omniscience to serve the Lord.

Saying “sarvaM” indicates omniscience only. No amount of word jugglery can compromise the context. You are talking to the authors of the Narayanastra blog, we have vast experience of interpreting names of the Lord contextually, and this is due to the fact that sri vaishnava AchAryAs have *always* stressed that names are used based on context and *always* interpreted the names accordingly. This is one reason why shrI bhattar’s vishNu sahasranAma vyAkhyana towers over the other commentaries. We also know that terms like “Rudra”, “Pashupati” etc denote mind, jIvAtma and various other objects in the shAstra, so we are quite used to determining which name suits what context. PP: (Sa vaa yEsha yEthEna dhivyEna chakshushA manasaithAn kaamAn pasyanRAMATHE, ya yEthE Brahma lOkE:CU 8.12.5).It is shocking that they think that this statement refers to jīva. How could they ignore the very next statement ?tam vā etam devā ātmānamupāsate | (The gods worship such Lord as the controller of all indriyas).The next statement indicates that all the gods worship the jīva. That is terrible. SD: It is shocking that you think we don’t have a valid interpretation of the next statement and that this doesn’t refer to the jIva. Typically, dvaitins ignore context as ever, and their gurus are not cognizant of the fact that Vishishtadvaita reciognises such a thing as “aksharOpAsaNa” (meditation on the jIvAtma). The only thing terrible is this illogical ananda tAratamya that has no basis in shAstra. Or the wild, crazy statements such as “Vishishtadvaitins falsified azhwars lineage”. Anyway, here you go, an explanation of the 2 upanishadic statements: atha yo vededaM manvAnIti sAtmA mano.asya daivaM chakShuH sa vA eSha etena daivena chakShuShA manasaitAnkAmAnpashyanramate ya ete brahmaloke || 8\.12\.5|| Meaning: He who knows that he thinks is the Atman. The mind is the only divine eye, only an instrument. He verily will be enjoying all auspicious qualities that are in the ether of the heart, called Brahmaloka seeing this through the mind, the divine eye. AkAsham means illumination as it is showing itself. Here it means form or rUpa (AkAshaM rUpAdi prakAshakaM). When the eye illumines the form and others, then that person is called a purusha having the eye as an instrument to see the objects (chakshurUpakaraNaka puruSha: AtmAn). The word puruSha signifies the Atman having the eye as an instrument. The eye is only an instrument for seeing that (chakshustu tadarshanAya kAraNamAtraM ithyartha). The three namely the eye and other sense organs, form and other objects and Atman are respectively the instrument, object of knowledge and the knowing entity (karaNatva jnEtva, jnAtrtva pradarshaN mukhEna. SharIrEndrIyEbhya: Atmana: vyatirEka: upapAditO bhavati). The distinction and the difference of the Atman from the body and indrIyas issignificantly pointed out by this. The Atman is the knower or jnAta and is different from the sense organs and the objects of the senses. Thus, this entire mantra refers to the jIvAtma and teaches that it is different from the body. Now, the next mantra says:

taM vA etaM devA AtmAnamupAsate tasmAtteShA{\m+} sarve cha lokA AttAH sarve cha kAmAH sa sarvA{\m+}shcha lokAnApnoti sarvA{\m+}shcha kAmAnyastamAtmAnamanuvidya vijAnAtIti ha prjApatiruvAcha prajApatiruvAcha || 8\.12\.6|| Meaning: The gods meditate upon this Atman and therefore they obtain all worlds and all desires. He who meditates upon the Atman like this and realizes it, attains all worlds and all desires, thus said Prajapati. Thus said Prajapati. As Prajapati taught the nature of the jIvAtma in this manner to Indra, all gods knowing the nature of that Atman meditated on the Atman in the proper way. By this, it is meant that they meditated on the essential nature of the jIvAtmA, understanding it to be different from the body, etc. The result of such meditation is said to be “brahmAnubhava”. So, how can the knowledge of the pratyagAtman lead to the experience of Brahman? It is answered belowThe realization of the knowledge of the pratyagAtman (the meditation on the essential nature and attributes of the jIvAtma) is an accessory to Brahmavidya (meditation on Brahman). For praising this pratyagAtma vidya, the phala of the main meditation is mentioned in respect of the anga or the accessory because the phala or the anga or accessory is included in the phala of BrahmOpAsaNa. This instruction into the nature of the pratyagAtman is an exposition of the meaning of the term “saMprasAda” which is in the daharavidya vAkya. This pratyagAtma vidya is an accessory to all Brahmavidyas and it has been explained thus in daharAdhikaraNa. In other words, realization of the jIvAtman and meditation on its’essential nature is an accessory to the meditation upon Brahman. That is only taught here. It is not “ OMG! TERRIBLE! gods worshipping the jIva” but “gods meditating and realizing the essential nature of the self (that is identical for all) which is seshatva, which then leads to brahmOpAsaNa”. This is established in the vedAnta sUtra “dahara uttarEbhya” (1-3-13). “Dahara” signifies Parabrahman. There is a reference to the exposition of Atmavidya to Indra and an objection is raised as to whether “Dahara”, on account of that, can signify the jIvAtma itself since the jIvAtma possesses 8 qualities such as apahatapApma etc. However, srI rAmAnuja establishes that while the jIvAtma possesses these 8 qualities, they become manifested only after realization of Brahman. So, these qualities are not manifested on account of karma in the state of embodiment and it is determined that “dahara” is the Supreme Brahman and these qualities are ever manifested in him. From this, it is clear that the teaching Prajapati gave to Indra is related to the pratyagAtman or finite self. Dvaitins have the tendency to jump on any and all statements referring to meditation and interpret it as Sri Hari, as they have no concept of AtmOpAsaNa, having incorrectly postulated that jIvAs have distinctions in their essential natures. This is wrong because there is such a thing as context. PP: (Trying to refute the Vishishtadvaitic interpretation of bhUma vidyA in the Chandogya) 'yo vai bhūmā tatsukhaṁ | nālpe sukhamasti | bhūmaiva sukhaṁ | bhūmā tveva vijijñāsitavya iti bhūmānaṁ bhagavo vijijñāsa' iti || Chāndogya - 7-23-1

Only the infinite One will have infinite bliss. The alpajīva cannot have infinite bliss (even if it is mukta). Such infinite One only has to be known (1st Brahmasutra). When Sanatkumara says this, Narada requests "Oh venerable one, make me know that Infinite One." SD: Wrong interpretation. The right one is, 'yo vai bhūmā tatsukhaṁ | nālpe sukhamasti | bhūmaiva sukhaṁ | bhūmā tveva vijijñāsitavya iti bhūmānaṁ bhagavo vijijñāsa' iti || Chāndogya - 7-23-1 Meaning: He who has plentitude (bhUma) is infinite bliss. There is no happiness in the little. bhUma alone or that which has the quality of plentitude is happiness. BhUma alone is to be known and realized. Narada says: “Oh venerable one, I would like to realize bhUma.” bhUma means that which is “bhUma guNa viSista”. It means plentitude but not in numbers. It is the opposite of “alpaM” or little. It is not in proportion or parimana but is of the form of the celebrity of auspicious qualities – guNOtkarSharUpaM. It means “utkarShakrtvaipulyamEva”. The connectivity is missed by mAdhvas. First, the shruti says that Brahman is qualified by infinite bliss on account of its’ auspicious qualities. Then, it says, it is the opposite of that which is little (other puruShArthas including the finite bliss of the individual self which is not the supreme goal). As Brahman alone has the quality of infinite bliss by virtue of his auspicious qualities, that Brahman, is to be realized, meaning, those auspicious qualities conferring infinite bliss are to be meditated upon”. So, shruti itself validates that the jIvA experiences Brahman kalyANa guNAs, which are capable of conferring infinite bliss. The purpose of mentioning “bhUmaiva sukhaM” after mentioning “nAlpE sukhamasti” is to ensure that the seeker yearns for experience of bhUma alone. PP: yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmā | atha yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṁ | yo vai bhūmā tadamṛtam | atha yadalpaṁ tanmartyam | sa bhagavaḥ kasmin pratiṣṭhita iti | sve mahimni yadi vā na mahimni iti || Chāndogya 7-24-1 Beyond Whom, one does not see any one else, one does not hear any one else, one does not know any one else, He is bhūma or Infinite one. (Meaning He is the only Independent one). Then, beyond whom, one sees some one else, one hears some one else, one knows some one else, He is alpa or finite one. (Meaning he is dependent one). pūrṇasvarūpa Brahman is nityamukta. Then the alpaguṇa jīvas are maraṇaśīlas. (Even the great gods, who become mukta jīvas, they have maraṇaśīlatva before reaching mukti). Then Narada asked "Oh venerable one, such where does that Paramātman take refuge in?" Sanatkumara replied "He takes refuge in His own glorious prosperity, or else it can be said in no oe else's prosperity." SD: What a mess! The basic idea is there in that interpretation, it is not entirely wrong, but improperly blundering into understanding the concept being elaborated here has resulted in the point being missed to an extent. Why does the phrase “beyond which one does not see anyone else…” etc only refer to the

Lord’s independence, when it is clear that a yOgi experiences only Brahman to the exclusion of everything else as well? The previous mantra clearly said that bhUma has to be known, ie, meditated upon. Independence and dependence of Brahman and jIva/jaDa is indeed the focus of the mantra, but not in the way elaborated above. Here is the proper interpretation: yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmā | atha yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṁ | yo vai bhūmā tadamṛtam | atha yadalpaṁ tanmartyam | sa bhagavaḥ kasmin pratiṣṭhita iti | sve mahimni yadi vā na mahimni iti || Chāndogya 7-24-1 Meaning: In the experience of which (bhUma), one will not see anything other than that, one will not know anything other than that, that is bhUma. Where one sees something else, hears something else, knows something else,that is little. That which is bhUma is immortal. That which is little is mortal. Narada: “On what is this established?” Sanat Kumara: It is founded on its’ own greatness, or not even its’ own greatness. The previous mantra established that bhUma is of infinite kalyaNa guNAs conferring infinite bliss, so this shruti elaborates that when one experiences the auspicious attributes of bhUma, he experiences nothing else. “yatra” – “where” – it means when Brahman is experienced nothing other than that is seen, heard or known. “yatra” means “yatra vasthuni anubhUyamAnE” – When bhUman is seen, nothing else is seen. When bhUman is heard, nothing else is heard. When it is being known, nothing else is known. As there is nothing other than bhUma (no separate existence), one does not see any other object from bhUman. A clarification now. The following pUrvapakShas are raised: 1) How can it be said that there is nothing other than bhUmAn? The sentients and non-sentients are indeed different from bhUman. It cannot be said that the meaning of bhUma Brahman is “chidachidviShishtRtva”. So, it cannot be said that the sentients and insentients are included in the “bhUma” sabdhArtha. The sentients and insentients are viSheshanas, different and distinct from the viSeshya. So, it cannot be said there is nothing other than bhUman. 2) It is taught further that bhUman is the Atman in everything. It is admitted that bhUman is the Atman in everything else and is the inner controller of sentients and insentients. So, there are other things besides Brahman. These questions are answered as follows: “brahmashabdavat bhUmashabdasyApi vastu paricchedashUnyatvamEvArtha:” – What is “vastu pariccheda”? Limitation of the form of “this is not this” is pariccheda and the absence of this is paricchEdashUnyatvaM. This can be in two ways:

1) On account of the non-difference of svarUpa. However, this theory is not supported by shruti as there is a difference between jIva, jaDa and Ishvara. 2) On account of “aprthak siddhi” or an inseparable existence. This theory is indeed supported by shruti on account of sharIrAtma bhAva. A body is inseparable to the self and has no separate existence from the latter. This is also known as “amSha-amShi bhAva” in the shAstra. Regarding 2), this again can happen in 2 ways: 1) Absence of existence (of jIva and jaDa) other than the existence of that (bhUma) – But this is not correct. 2) Existence (of jIva and jaDa) subjected to the existence of that (bhUma) – This view is admitted in the siddhAntha. Thus, the jIva and jaDa have an existence only so long as they are inseparably associated as the body of Brahman. As the body’s sole purpose and existence depends on it being associated with the self, similarly the jIva and jaDa have their sole purpose and existence dependent on paramAtma. And thus, just as “Jack” denotes the jIvAtma associated with the body of Jack as its’ inseparable attribute, there is nothing other than bhUman, with the jIva and jaDa being inseparable attributes. “yatra nAnyath pashyati” means therefore “sathsathAnadhIna sathAkaM nAsti”, ie, “yadanAtmakaM nAstityartha”. That which is of the opposite nature to this bhUma is to be known as little. All other purushArthas yield finite bliss only and hence, one should seek to experience the bliss of Brahman. bhUma is immortal (and its’ svarUpa is eternally characterized by the 8 auspicious qualities such as apahatapApApma etc) and is free from birth and death. All other entities depend on this bhUma for their existence and functioning. Thus, they are called “mortal”. It doesn’t mean “they are mortal before reaching mukti”. Rather, since they are eternally dependent on Brahman for their existence, they are termed “mortal” as in “dependence”. Now, we established that bhUma alone is independent and others being inseperable attributes of Brahman, are dependent on him. Narada asks then about the support for that entity as all entities usually have a support. The answer is that its’ own greatness is its’ support. Brahman is “anAdhara”. PP: go aśvamiha mahimetyācakśate hastihiraṇyaṁ dāsabhāryaṁ kśetrāṇyāyatanāni iti | nāhamevaṁ bravīmi bravīmīti hovāca | anyo hyanyasmin pratiṣṭhita iti || Chāndogya -7-24-2 "In this universe, it may be deemed that cows, horses, elephants, gold, servants, wife, lands, houses are great wealth. I would not say that this meager wealth are supporting the Lord. Others depend on this kind of meager wealth, but the Lord does not. SD: Similar meaning is provided by Vishishtadvaitins.

" sa evādhastāt| sa upariṣṭāt | sa paścāt| sa purastāt | sa dakśiṇataḥ | sa uttarataḥ | sa evedam sarvam iti | athāto'haṁkārādeśa eva | ahamevādhastāt | ahamupariṣṭāt | ahaṁ paścāt | ahaṁ purastāt | ahaṁ dakśiṇataḥ | hamuttarataḥ | ahamevedam sarvam iti || "This is the attribute of Nārāyaṇa nāmaka Paramātma - He pervades downward, upward, backward, frontward, leftward, rightward and allover. All are dependent on Him and He alone is independent. There after, for that reason, jīvāntargata aniruddha nāmaka ahankāra nāmaka Aniruddha will be explained. Guṇapūrṇa Nārāyaṇa and jīvāntargata Aniruddha are the same. This 'aham' nāmaka Aniruddha pervades downward, upward, backward, frontward, leftward, rightward and all over. All are dependent on Him and He alone is independent." " sa evādhastāt| sa upariṣṭāt | sa paścāt| sa purastāt | sa dakśiṇataḥ | sa uttarataḥ | sa evedam sarvam iti | athāto'haṁkārādeśa eva | ahamevādhastāt | ahamupariṣṭāt | ahaṁ paścāt | ahaṁ purastāt | ahaṁ dakśiṇataḥ | hamuttarataḥ | ahamevedam sarvam iti || …. SD: *Sigh*. Another turgid mess. Why go meandering towards unrelated topics like “Aniruddha vyUha will be explained”, “Narayana and Aniruddha are the same”, et al. Stick to the topic, which is the meditation on the Lord as bhUma. This is such a typical trait of dvaitins. They see a pramANa for something, but stick it where it should not be used, instead of the actual place where it should be (as in the case of interpreting “sarvaM” as the Lord). Similarly, “ahaM” here has been interpreted as a name of the Lord, the subject has been changed to Narayana/Aniruddha, etc without noting the context of “where one experiences bhUman, he sees/hears nothing else” in the previous mantras suggesting sharIrAtma bhAVa and aprthak siddhi. End result is a grammatically correct but contextually incorrect meaning given by the dvaitins. No regard for the context, though they are under the impression that they have done justice to everything. Here is the correct meaning for the above mantra: "sa evādhastāt| sa upariṣṭāt | sa paścāt| sa purastāt | sa dakśiṇataḥ | sa uttarataḥ | sa evedam sarvam iti | athāto'haṁkārādeśa eva | ahamevādhastāt | ahamupariṣṭāt | ahaṁ paścāt | ahaṁ purastāt | ahaṁ dakśiṇataḥ | hamuttarataḥ | ahamevedam sarvam iti || Meaning: He (That bhUma) alone is below, above, he is behind, he is in front, he is to the south, he is to the north. He is all this. Now the instruction about the meditation upon him as “AhaM”. I alone am above, I alone am behind, I alone am in front, I alone am to the south, I alone am to the north. I alone am all this. Here is the explanation. The Upanishad anticipates objections to the previous statement “where he does not see anything else”. If the pUrvapakSin argues that it is not correct as different kinds of sentients and non-sentient objects are seen in all directions, the answer is given by the statement, “He alone is all this”.

Meaning, there is concomitant co-ordination between “bhUma” designated as “He” and “all this” (idam sarvaM). In other words, this establishes the sharIrAtma bhAva between “all this” and “He”. As bhUma is the self in all and all objects are the body of bhUma, all objects are ultimately designated as the “bhUma”, since names of the body extend to the self inside the body. The name“Jack” denotes the body of Jack and in the ultimate analysis, extends to the Atman inhabiting the body. So, there is nothing that has not bhUma as its’ atman and everything is his body. Hence, in the ultimate analysis, everything is bhUma alone (just as “Jack” denotes the Atman associated with the body of Jack). When bhUma is to be meditated upon, it should be meditated as the “antarAtma” (self of all) and also as the antaryAmin, the innerself of the individual self. bhUma is the self of the jIvAtma and the jIvAtma is the body of bhUma. So, instruction is given to meditate upon bhUma as the self. Since all words signify the antaryAmin, “I” refers to bhUma who is the inner self of the self. This teaching of meditation on “ahaM” does not refer to the jIvAtma, but is the upAsaNa of paramAtma as the inner self of the jIvAtma. The jIvAtma is the sharIra of Brahman, and the definition of “sharIra” is “niyamEna AdhEya”, “niyAmya” and “sesha”, which apply to the jIvAtma. PP: tadeṣa ślokaḥ - na paśyo mṛtyuṁ paśyati na rogaṁ nota duḥkhatām | sarvam ha paśyaḥ paśyati sarvamāpnoti sarvaśa iti | sa ekadhā bhavati tridhā bhavati pañcadhā saptadhā navadhā caiva punaścaikādaśaḥ smṛtaḥ | śataṁ ca daśa caikaśca sahasrāṇi ca vimśatiḥ | .... Chāndogya - 7-26-2|| "As support for the above, this śloka goes - The mukta does not see the anarthas like death, disease, and despair. He sees the activities of the Lord, he obtains the sarva nāmaka Paramātma. He fulfills all of his own deires. He takes one, three, five, seven, nine, eleven, hundred and eleven, thousand and twenty, etc forms." It is quite evident that none of these point out any thing even remotely that the jñāna and ānanda of the jīva equals that of Brahman. SD: This has been already elaborated earlier. It is quite evident that giving a contextually incorrect interpretation does not justify the mAdhva stand in any manner. “sarvaM ha paSyaH paSyati” is only indicating omniscience of the mukta. It is only by virtue of the infinite DBJ that a mukta can assume infinite number of bodies in moksha. The jIvA is aNu svarUpa and hence cannot be in several bodies at once, but controls several bodies by its’ DBJ while remaining in one body. paramAtma in contrast, has vibhu svarUpa and DBJ, and he can be in several bodies physically at once. Thus, the mention of the mukta assuming infinite number of bodies itself indicates the context of “sarvaM” as referring to omniscience. PP: A blind repetition of the same phrase without any supporting evidence will not make that statement true. Only Brahman is omniscient and the jīva is not.

SD: Already proven that jIva is omniscient in moksha by “sarvaM ha paShyaM paShyati:”. This schtick is getting old. The only thing “blind” is how the dvaitins go rampantly interpreting “sarvaM”, “ahaM” and other terms as the Lord with little regard for context in shruti. PP: This is due to the confusion between jñāna and prakāśa. If they think that prakāśa itself is jñāna, then a tube light or a burning candle will have to be considered as having jñāna. jñāna is not visible to the eye, Prakāśa is. jñāna does not pervade into space, Prakāśa does. So bringing jñāna into picture and talking about size, shows heavy confusion. Also what is this DBJ? Is it same as Vritti jñāna or different? If it is different, then every living being has three kinds of jñāna - Svarūpa jñāna, Vritti jñāna and DBJ. And their contention is that this DBJ is carried into mokṣa as well. Where is this located? If it is in Svarūpa, then its contraction and expansion, etc indicate the vikāra for the svarūpa. If it is not in Svarūpa, how can it be carried over into mokṣa. SD: There is no confusion other than in the mind of the author who fails to grasp a simple analogy. Nobody is saying prakAsa is jnAna. What is said is the following example. Consider a fire (jvAla). It has has radiance (prabha) as its’ inseparable attribute. The essential nature of both is brightness (tejas). But while the fire reveals itself, the radiance (prabha) reveals external objects. As the two have different functions and also have an inseparable substance-attribute relationship, they are different despite having identical natures of brightness (tejas). Similarly, the AtmA is jnAna svarUpa and also has jnAna as its’ attribute. The AtmA reveals itself and the attributive knowledge (DBJ) reveals external objects to the AtmA. As both reveal something, the shAstra refers to both as “jnAna”. But as both have different functions and DBJ is an inseparable attribute, it is different from svarUpa jnAna. That’s all the analogy was used for. The DBJ is an inseparable attribute of the jIvA, just as how prabhA is the attribute of fire. It is a mere analogy for DBJ and hence should not be stretched to ridiculous conclusions by comparing all attributes of radiance etc to DBJ. Again the lion=man analogy comes to mind. Going by this author, one should never use the analogy “The man has the strength of a lion” because “The man doesn’t have 4 legs, roar like a lion or live in the jungle”. When shAstra compares DBJ to the luster of a gem, it is to show how DBJ is inseparably associated with the jIva like luster of a gem and shines out like the luster. That’s all the analogy conveys – inseparable association, shining out of DBJ upon removal of karmas like dust removed from a gem. That DBJ is infinite is conveyed by shAstra and not by the analogy through pramANas like “sarvaM ha paShyaH paShyatI…”. The author doesn’t understand how analogies should not be stretched to illogical conclusions. And yet the author seems to grasp the analogy of a “King is like Lion in a Battlefield” quite well when his own gurus use it. Hypocrisy much? A sentient entity is always qualified by DBJ, which is how external objects are illumined to the entity. svarUpa jnAna cannot cognize external objects and only reveals itself. Basically, DBJ or attributive knowledge reveals itself and external objects to the self, but DBJ by itself does not “know”, it only illumines. It is the self that knows itself and what is revealed to it by DBJ, whereas DBJ itself does not “know”. And shAstras declare that this DBJ is indestructible; hence the self always possesses DBJ.

The prashnOpanishad also declares that the jIva has DBJ as follows: eSha hi draShTa spraShTA shrotA ghrAtA rasayitA manta boddhA kartA vij~nAnAtmA puruShaH | sa pare.akShara Atmani sampratiShThate || 9|| Meaning: This individual self (puruSha) which is of the nature of knowledge (vijnAnAtma) is verily the seer, the feeler, the hearer, the smeller, the taster, the thinker, the knower (boddha) and the doer. He becomes established in the immutable supreme self. The 2 different words used in the above statement “vijnAnAtma” and “boddha” – both connoting knowledge – are used to signify that the self is not only of the nature of knowledge, but also has knowledge as its’ attribute (DBJ). Both svarUpa jnAna and DBJ are “jnAna”, but as their functions are different and one is inseparable to the other, they have a substance-attribute relationship and hence are different. The terms “knower”, “doer”, “thinker” mentioned separately serve to dispel the following 2 views: 1) That the jIva has mere knowership and is not of the nature of knowledge, 2) That he is pure knowledge without having knowership. Other pramANAs were provided earlier. Logically as well, the jIvAs in samsAra undergo modifications and we know from shAstra that the jIvAtma too is “avikAra” in its’ essential nature. Then, it is only the DBJ which is undergoing modification in terms of contraction and extraction due to karmas. The idea of jIvAs having different intrinsic natures is refuted by the statements which declare all jIvAs to be the sharIra (and hence having identical natures of seshatva) of Brahman. As mentioned earlier Brahman and jIva, who are chEtanas, feel the sense of "I" (ie.pratyaktvam) and has DBJ. But, an achEtana like say, Suddha Sattvam does not posses pratyaktvam (ie. feeling of the "I" ness) and doesn't have DBJ, although it is also jnAnAndamaya svarUpam. Admittedly, I am not sure what the author means by “vritti jnAna”. Such a term has not been used in Vishishtadvaita. No mater, it is enough to know that DBJ and svArUpa jnAna are different. PP: Then what is the role of Svarupa jñāna? The svarupa jñāna does not allow the cognition of Brahman, but DBJ does ? So the Svarupa jñāna in mokṣa is significantly useless compared to DBJ !! SD: svarUpa jnAna of jIva is nothing but “seshatva jnAna”. This was illustrated with many pramANAs provided earlier. As svarUpa jnAna is nothing but “I”, the “I-ness” realization is nothing but understanding seshatva as the essential nature of the Atma on account of being the body of Brahman, who is indwelling in the jIva. svarUpa cognizes itself, not external objects. DBJ allows cognition of not just Brahman, but all external objects. Without it, one cannot even look outward. If the author is reading this on his computer, it is by his DBJ, not his svarUpa jnAna. PP: Another quagmire. If the muktas assuming multiple bodies in mokṣa is an evidence for DBJ expanding to infinity in mokṣa, then those "some ṛṣis" (It is actually Soubhari) also must be considered

as having this DBJ expanded to infinity in saMsāra itself (no need to wait till mokṣa). This DBJ acts like an equalizer - making each one's DBJ expand in succh a way that they equal the ānada of Brahma. SD: ROFL. Is the author deliberately trying to be obtuse? The idea is, as DBJ expands, more and more powers are possible. Soubhari Muni’s DBJ is expanded to a greater extent than ours, so he has the ability to control, say, 1000 bodies (let us assume a number), whereas we cannot control even one body that is external to our own. However, Soubhari is not divested completely of karma and hence there is a limit to the number of bodies he can assume (let’s assume he cannot control more than 1000 bodies). In moksha, DBJ is expanded infinitely and the mukta can control infinite number of bodies. The extent of expansion of DBJ determines how many bodies one can control while in samsAra and even the level of yogic powers that are seen in devas, rishis, etc. That is why the Chandogya Upanishad says sa ekadhA bhavati tridhA bhavati pa~nchadhA saptadhA navadhA chaiva punashchaikAdashaH smR^itaH shataM cha dasha chaikashcha sahasrANi cha (7-26-2) – The mukta can control infinite number of bodies by his infinite DBJ. And that is also why, “sarvaM ha paShya paShyati:” refers to the omniscience of the mukta.Context, tsk, tsk. Otherwise, the story of Saubhari is not possible. How can a jIva, which is aNu svarUpa, even inhabit 2 or more bodies at the same time? How can Shiva appear in his lingas in temples? It is not some “achintya shakti” of jIva or “inherent nature” of jIvasvarUpa (which is finite). Rather, by virtue of expanded DBJ, the jIva remains in one body, but by its’ jnAna, controls various bodies and experiences through its’ jnAna, what those bodies experience, while staying in one body. We humans have contracted DBJ and cannot control many bodies now. A rishi like Saubhari has less contracted DBJ than us and can control, say 1000 bodies. A deva like Rudra is superior to the rishi and has still more expanded DBJ and can control, say 100,000 bodies. But a mukta has infinitely expanded DBJ and can control infinite number of bodies. Such a simple concept. In the case of paramAtma, his svarUpa and DBJ are both infinite, so he can literally reside in multiple bodies, as opposed to the jIva who can only pervade several bodies by its’ knowledge. This is the difference between vishNu in archa avatAra in temples, and the vigrahas of other devatas in their temples as well. The ability of the jIva to control multiple bodies is itself the proof of DBJ. ANANDA MIMAMSA PP: (referring to Ananda Mimamsa of Taittiriya Upanishad) The śruti vākyas were given and explained earlier in this write up. Let me reproduce a small part here - One hundred bliss units of Mukta chakravartis = one bliss unit of Mukta Manuṣya Gandharvas, who are śrotriyas (obtained the full śravana phala and also devoid of kāmajanita upadravas, meaning they have become āptakāmas). One hundred bliss units of Mukta Manuṣya Gandharvas = one bliss unit of

Mukta Deva Gandharvas, who are śrotriyas (obtained the full śravana phala and also devoid of kāmajanita upadravas, meaning they have become āptakāmas). One hundred bliss units of Mukta Deva Gandharvas = one bliss unit of Mukta pitṛ devatas, who are śrotriyas (obtained the full śravana phala and also devoid of kāmajanita upadravas, meaning they have become āptakāmas). One hundred bliss units of Mukta pitṛ devatas = one bliss unit of Mukta ajānaja devatas, who are śrotriyas (obtained the full śravana phala and also devoid of kāmajanita upadravas, meaning they have become āptakāmas). One hundred bliss units of Mukta ajānaja devatas = one bliss unit of Mukta karmaja devatas, who are śrotriyas (obtained the full śravana phala and also devoid of kāmajanita upadravas, meaning they have become āptakāmas). and then it continues from Mukta Karmaja devatas to Mukta devatas, etc. upto Chaturmukha Brahma. Note that in each case, the two words "śrotriyasya" and "akāmahatasya" are repeated tirelessly to avoid any confusion and to emphasize that this is "ānanda mīmāMsa of mukta jīvas only, not amukta jīvas. If Sri Ranga Rāmānuja thinks that "this is one unit of ananda for manushya gandharvas and also for a muktA…..‟ and they want to mix amukta and mukta, then I can only think of two possibilities - Possibility-1 : 100 bliss units of of Amukta chakravartis = 1 bliss unit of Amukta Manuṣya Gandharva = 1 bliss unit of Mukta Manuṣya Gandharva 100 bliss units of of Amukta Manuṣya Gandharvas = 1 bliss unit of Amukta Deva Gandharva = 1 bliss unit of Mukta Deva Gandharva 100 bliss units of of Amukta Deva Gandharvas = 1 bliss unit of Amukta pitṛ devata = 1 bliss unit of Mukta pitṛ devata 100 bliss units of of Amukta pitṛ devata = 1 bliss unit of Amukta ajānaja devata = 1 bliss unit of Mukta ajānaja devata 100 bliss units of Amukta ajānaja devatas = 1 bliss unit of Amukta karmaja devata = 1 bliss unit of Mukta karmaja devata etc. upto Chaturmukha Brahma. This implies that the bliss of Amukta is same as bliss of Mukta in each category. That is terrible. And aslo this still carries a variation among Mukta jīvas. This goes against their own position. Possibility-2 : 100 bliss units of of Amukta chakravartis = 1 bliss unit of Amukta Manuṣya Gandharva = 1 bliss unit of an arbitrary Mukta M1 100 bliss units of of Amukta Manuṣya Gandharvas = 1 bliss unit of Amukta Deva Gandharva = 1 bliss unit of an arbitrary Mukta M1 (the same M1) 100 bliss units of of Amukta Deva Gandharvas = 1 bliss unit of Amukta pitṛ devata = 1 bliss unit of an arbitrary Mukta M1 (the same M1) 100 bliss units of of Amukta pitṛ devata = 1 bliss unit of Amukta ajānaja devata = 1 bliss unit of an arbitrary Mukta M1 (the same M1) 100 bliss units of Amukta ajānaja devatas = 1 bliss unit of Amukta karmaja devata = 1 bliss unit of an arbitrary Mukta M1 (the same M1) etc. upto Chaturmukha Brahma. This is probably even worse. The bliss of M1 is very indetrminate and arbitraily equated with many. Yet due to equating with amuktas, it is not infinite either. This goes against their own position. May be there is another possibility that they can interpret this as. SD:Note the underlined statement of the author. Maybe there is another possibility indeed, that you do not understand the first word of the vishishtadvaitic interpretation. A word of advice – when you write a “Refutation”, try to write it in a legible manner. Otherwise, people will end up skipping it even if you have a valid point. The use of abbreviations like M1, S1, Possibility 1 etc in an attempt to illustrate a “zest for covering all aspects of debate” is annoying as hell. Especially since its’ based on a wayward understanding of the purvapakSha.

Ananda Mimamsa has already been explained briefly earlier, but for your benefit, here we go. I will explain the commentary. I’m not gonna read that long diatribe of M1s, 1000x etc the author has written because the style of writing is rank tedious. And it is obviously in ignorance of the vyAkhyANa given by the Vishishtadvaitins. saiShA.a.anandasya mImA{\m+}sA bhavati . yuvA syAtsAdhuyuvA.adhyAyakaH . AshiShTho dR^iDhiShTho baliShThaH .tasyeyaM pR^ithivI sarvA vittasya pUrNA syAt . sa eko mAnuSha AnandaH . te ye shataM mAnuShA AnandAH .. sa eko manuShyagandharvANAmAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM manuShyagandharvANAmAnandAH . sa eko devagandharvANAmAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM devagandharvANAmAnandAH . sa ekaH pitR^iNAM chiralokalokAnAmAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM pitR^iNAM chiralokalokAnAmAnandAH . sa eka AjAnajAnAM devAnAmAnandaH .. shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM AjAnajAnAM devAnAmAnandAH . sa ekaH karmadevAnAM devAnAmAnandaH .ye karmaNA devAnapiyanti . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM karmadevAnAM devAnAmAnandAH .sa eko devAnAmAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM devAnAmAnandAH . sa eka indrasyA.a.anandaH ..shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shatamindrasyA.a.anandAH . sa eko bR^ihaspaterAnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM bR^ihaspaterAnandAH . sa ekaH prajApaterAnandaH .shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya . te ye shataM prajApaterAnandAH .sa eko brahmaNa AnandaH . shrotriyasya chAkAmahatasya .. Meaning: This is that inquiry of that bliss – supposing there is a youth who has studied well and as if most afresh and expeditious, strong in body, most strong mentally. Suppose all this Earth filled with wealth becomes his. That is one measure of human bliss. If this human bliss is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of manushya gandharvas and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire. If the bliss of manushya gandharvas is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of deva gandharvas and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire.

If the bliss of deva gandharvas is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of manes, whose world is everlasting and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire. If the bliss of manes living in the everlasting world is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of ajanajana gods and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire. If the bliss of ajanajana gods is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of karmadeva gods who reach the gods on account of their vedic rites and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire. If the bliss of karmadeva gods is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of gods and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire. If the bliss of gods is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of Indra and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire. If the bliss of Indra is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of Brihaspati and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire. If the bliss of Brihaspati is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of Prajapati (Chaturmukha Brahma) and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire. If the bliss of Prajapati (Chaturmukha Brahma) is multiplied a 100 times, it is 1 unit of the bliss of Brahman and also of one who is established in Brahman and who is not affected by desire. The first thing to realize is that the dvaita interpretation is easily refuted since “sa ekO brahmaNaH AnandaH” at the end refers to Brahman and not Brahma, the latter being referred to as “Prajapati”, which doesn’t signify Daksha, etc. The Upanishad begins with “brahmavidApnoti paraM” and reteirates “Anandam brahmaNo vidvAn”. Thus, the Ananda mimAmsa is an attempt to gauge the Ananda of Brahman as opposed to enumerating Ananda tAratamyas of so-called muktas as the Dvaitins believe and hence, “sa ekO brahmaNaH AnandaH” refers to Brahman and not Chaturmukha Brahma. The fact of Brahman being “Anandamaya” is expounded here. “Ananda” is also an inseparable attribute of Brahman and thus it is not wrong to say “one unit of the bliss of Brahman”. The subject matter of the query (Ananda mimAmsa) is the plentitude or abundance of Ananda in Brahman/Moksha. The infinite nature of Ananda is pointed out by means of a series of gradation of Ananda, ie, multiplying the known Anandas of samsArIs and trying to figure out if BrahmAnanda is calculable (which it is not, as the Upanishad admits after the analysis). “sAdhu yuvAdhyAyak” – Here, sAdhu means “ordained”. Studying the veda according to the established rules of tradition and perfectly along with the accurate svara and without the omission of any varNa whatsoever. “Yuva” signifies freshness. One whose study of the veda remains fresh on account of nonforgetfulness – avismaraNAth nityaM navaM yathA bhavati tathA adhyayanvAnityartha: - This also signifies he is an instructor to those his own age and implies he has greater knowledge (adhikajnAna). “AShiShta” signifieshe is quick in action. This implies he is free of disease and eats well, etc, or that he is

the recipient of the blessings of others. “baliShta” means he has strength of mind. “dRdhiShta” – firm of body. It can also mean he is not of wavering nature. One who has the above glory and qualities is said to have Ananda. It should not be doubted that guNa and vibhUti cannot have Ananda as they are different from jnAna since that which is agreeable is Anandatva and that can happen to guNas and vibhUtis too. The knowledge of the objects of the world is having anukUlatva on account of the anukUlatva of the viShayas. The above qualities can be seen in samsAra and thus refer to a perfected human being in samsAra, as opposed to a mukta. This is one measure of human bliss where all excellences are found together. Before we proceed further, a slight detour. Regarding the above, the author brings up a pUrvapakSha: PP: When an invisible aspect of ānanda MīmāMsa of Muktas (liberated) is enlisted, it must have a starting point that we can comprehend. "tasyeyam pṛthivI sarvā vittasya pūrṇā syāt | sa eko mānuṣa ānandaḥ |..." When we want to start the basic unit of Mukta chakravarti, how do we go about? How much is 1 unit of bliss of Mukta chakravarti? Before going to mokṣa (i.e. in saMsāra), in Tretayuga, when the Earth is full of prosperity, and the chakravarti rules this entire Earth, what ever bliss he gets - multiply that by 100 and that will be 1 unit of his bliss, when he goes to mokṣa. So, 100 bliss units of Amukta (unliberated) mānuṣa chakravarti (when he rules the entire Earth filled with propserity) = 1 bliss unit when He ges to mokṣa. "The nature and details of the bliss in mokṣa, that the jñānis surely acquire, will be described herewith. One who stays with Viṣṇu, one who has good qualities, one who has acquired the status of pūrṇa adhyayana phala, would acquire his full of bliss, that will be eternal, he will be nirvikāra and full of strength. During saMsāra, when he rules the entire Earth, full of prosperity in Tretayuga - what ever bliss he gets - multiply that 100 times and that will be 1 unit of his bliss in mokṣa. Multiply that by 100 and that will be one bliss unit of Manuṣya Gandharva and so on." SD: This argument is null and void. The author assumes that the Ananda mimAmsa wants to “enlist the invisible aspect of Ananda mimAmsa of muktas” and “wants to start with the basic unit of mukta chakravarti”. This is not proven and is the point being debated. Even the fact that there is an Ananda tAramya in moksha such as “mukta chakravartis, etc” is assumed here as part of the author’s argument, when it is the topic under debate. The author’s pramANA that there exists “mukta manushya/chakravartis” etc is this Anandavalli section. The assumption he makes while trying to refute opposing interpretations of the Anandavalli is that this section is enumerating Ananda of mukta chakravarti etc. So, he has assumed this is a pramANA for his viewpoint while trying to prove that this is a pramANA for his viewpoint, which is a logical fallacy. Firstly, there is no inkling that shruti wants to “start with the basic unit of a mukta chakravarti” or “enlist invisible aspects of muktAnanda”, so this is an assumption on the part of the author. As the context has been established by “brahmavidApnOti paraM” and “AnandaM brahmaNo vidvAn”, the endeavor is to

measure brahmAnanda by comparing it with the highest Anandas that are well-known, ie, samsAric Anandas. Secondly, there is no indication that there is a “mukta chakravarti”, “mukta gandharva” etc separately in moksha. Such a tAratamya is again not proven by the author to make such an assumption. The mukta is only mentioned as “shrotriya” and free of desire here, and just because it is repeated does not mean it refers to different classes of muktas as the dvaitins believe. Thus, all muktas are identical in nature and these characteristics qualify them, so the entire class of identical muktas is indicated each time “shrotriya” is mentioned. The purpose of mentioning the mukta each time repeatedly is only to show that a mukta also has these Anandas included in his Ananda, ie, the muktAnanda is not deficient of any Ananda even if the samsAric Anandas are multiplied progressively. In the Chandogya (8.12.3) which was explained previously, it is said that the mukta has experiences of his past bodies without the taints of sorrow and dehAtma bhrama due to being free of karmas as he is a sarvaj~na, so all Anandas are included in his Ananda on account of him being a sarva~jna and thus, this is the meaning here. Thirdly, the ultimate purushArtha is experience of brahma kalyANa guNAs which is proven by statements like “soSnutE sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipascitA” etc, which is the purpose behind the Ananda mimAmsa and hence, it cannot be said that the bliss enjoyed by a chakravarti in samsAra on account of wealth, firm body, etc alone reflects the Ananda of a mukta, though these are Anandas that are also included in the Ananda of a mukta. The argument of the author is thussummarily flawed because -1) It assumes the shruti wants to start detailing Anandas of “mukta chakravartis”, “mukta gandharvas”, etc when that is the debate in question,ie, is there such a tAratamya in moksha?, 2) It assumes that a delineation of samsAric qualities reflects the Ananda of a “mukta chakravarti” when it has not been proven so, for it is contended that Ananda arises from experience of Brahman in moksha, though these Anandas (enumerated for a samsAri) are included in the mukta’s Ananda, 3) The argument also assumes muktas have designations like “chakravartis”, “gandharvas”, etc in moksha which has not been proven by the author as the Anandavalli section itself lists the mukta separately each time as “shrotriya” and free of desire (characteristics common to all muktas) with the reason for repetition having been explained as well. The Ananda mimAmsa is but an enquiry into Brahman being of the nature of bliss or “Anandamaya”. He is blissful by nature and also has Ananda as his attribute. Hence, the intent is to determine whether this bliss can be described fully. Then, the following interpretation of the author: “The nature and details of the bliss in mokṣa, that the jñānis surely acquire, will be described herewith”. …Is but a wrong premise, since the Upanishad has clearly declared “Anandam brahmaNo vidvAn”. It is to be interpreted as:

“The fact of Brahman being “Anandamaya” will be described herewith” As Brahman is the object of experience for a mukta, that serves the purpose of wanting to know about brahmAnanda. Let us see how continuity of mantras proves this. Contuning from where we left off, that is one unit of manushya ananda which was described earlier. The reference to “shrotriyasyacAkAmahatasya” indicates that this Ananda is also there for a mukta. Since a mukta is an experiencer of all Anandas, this Ananda is included in his Ananda too and this is the intent behind “shrotriyasya cAkamahatasya”. The idea is that the mukta is not deficient of any Anandas that samsArIs of varying abilities experience. And so on so forth. Coming to “prajApati”, it refers to Chaturmukha Brahma and not Daksha, etc. Then, “sa eko brahmaNa Ananda” – This is one unit of the bliss of Brahman and also that of a mukta. Here, “brahmaNa” refers to the Supreme Brahman who was referred to in the beginning of this Upanishad as “brahmavidApnoti paraM”. This alone is enough to dismiss the dvaita interpretation, for it is absurd to claim “this is the Ananda of Brahman and a mukta Brahman”. Their interpretation hinges on interpreting this as Brahma and interpreting “prajApati” as Daksha, which is clearly wrong according to the context and pramANAs in the Upanishad itself.It will be later seen that the Ananda mimAmsa section of the BrihadAraNyaka too supports this Vishishtadvaitic interpretation only. It is not so that the bliss of Brahman is only 100 times that of Chaturmukha Brahma. The statement only means that the bliss of Brahman is much greater than that of Brahma. As an example, the statement – “iShuvat – gacchati – savithA” – “The sun moves like a darting arrow” – only negates the slow movement of the sun, but does not specify the speed and direction of the movement. The fact that the Ananda mimAmsa is only an inquiry into the bliss of Brahman and not to enumerate a so-called tAratamya in moksha is reinforced by the succeeding mantras: sa yashchAyaM puruShe . yashchAsAvAditye .sa ekaH . “He that is here in this person and that is in the sun are one.” Gist of the mantra: Who is the particular deity, who was described as “Anandamaya” previously, that is to be meditated in the cave of the heart? It is the being in the sun. The idea is that this mantra identifies that Anandamaya Brahman described by “sa eko brahmaNa Ananda” and “brahmavidApnoti paraM” earlier as sUrya nArAyaNa. Thus, the continuity is achieved only by admitting the Ananda mimAmsa as an enquiry into the bliss of Brahman and interpreting “sa eko brahmaNa Ananda” as one unit of the bliss of Brahman. The next mantra declares “yato vAcho nivartante .aprApya manasA saha . AnandaM brahmaNo vidvAn .” - “Knowing that bliss of Brahman, from which bliss, mind and speech turn away without reaching, one fears nothing.”

The bliss of Brahman cannot be known fully because it is infinite. “Knowing” signifies experiencing. Even in samsAra, meditation on the auspicious qualities, which leads to bliss, is recommended. The state of the mukta is that he experiences all the auspicious qualities of Brahman, leading to infinite bliss, which is thus far superior to the alpa-Ananda of perfect manushyas, gandharvas, devas, etc attainable in samsAra and is to be sought after. Thus, a contuity is established in the subsequent mantras as well. This is the purport of the Ananda mimAmsa. PP: In the BrihAraNyaka, it is said the Ananda of the jIva is finite whereas Ananda of Brahman is infinite. eṣā'sya paramā gatiḥ | eṣā'sya paramā saṁpat | eṣo'sya paramo lokaḥ | eṣo'sya parama ānandaḥ | etasyaivā''nandasyānyāni bhūtāni mātrāmupajīvanti || - Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣat - 4-3-32 The Upanishad also uses the word “rAddhaH” for manuShya Ananda (in the Ananda mimAmsa of BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad) which shows it is a mukta manushya SD: Let us examine the entire section in detail. salila eko draShTAdvaito bhavaty |salile ekas draShTA advaitas bhavati eSha brahmalokaH eSha brahmalokas samrAD samrAT iti hainamanushashAsa yAj~navalkya | eShAsya paramA gatir iti ha enam uvAcha anushashAsa yAj~navalkyas eShA asya paramA gatis eShAsya paramA sampad eShA asya paramA sampad eSho.asya paramo loka | eShas asya paramas lokas eSho.asya parama Ananda eShas asya paramas Anandas etasyaivA.a.anandasyAnyAni bhUtAni mAtrAmupajIvanti | (BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad 4-3-32) Meaning: As water, the jIva who is the seer becomes one with paramAtma (in the state of suShupti) and is devoid of duality. This is BrahmalOka, O King! Thus did yajnavAlkya instruct Janaka. This is his (the jIvAtman’s) highest goal. This is the highest wealth. This is the supreme bliss. All other beings live only on a small fraction of this highest bliss. “salilE” – Just as water poured in a pool of water becomes one with it, the jIvAtma uniting with paramAtma will be one with him, meaning, he will be without the distinguishing features of man, god, etc. The term “brahmalOka” signifies paramAtma who is the support of suShupti. That brahmalOka is the supreme object of attainment. It is that supreme goal to be reached by the liberated self through the path of archirAdi. “paramA sampath” – This is the supreme wealth to be attained through tattva jnAna (tattvajnAnAdinA prApya sampath). “paramO loka” – That means the place of experiencing the supreme (parama) bliss. This shows that it is the highest bliss of paramAtma that is experienced in moksha.

“All other beings live only on a fraction of this bliss” – This means - shAshaktaMbhOgasthAna anyAnibhUtAni mAtrAmupajIvanti – People other than those that enjoy the bliss of Brahman in union with the latter, experience the pleasures of the senses in svarga and other places. Their joy is a thousandth fraction of the supreme bliss of paramAtma enjoyed by muktAs in moksha. This is the correct way of interpreting the above statement in the Upanishad. Now, having said that the pleasures of svarga, etc are but a thousandth of the bliss in paramapada, the Upanishad goes on to prove it by replicating the Ananda mimAmsa of Taittiriya Upanishad, by multiplying the Anandas of samsArIs and comparing it with the brahmAnanda, to show how less samsAra ananda is compared to moksha sukha. sa yo manUShyANA{\m+} rAddhaH samR^iddho bhavatyanyeShAmadhipatiH sarvairmAnuShyakairbhogaiH sampannatamaH anyeShAm sa yas manUShyANAm rAddhas samR^iddhas bhavati adhipatis sarvais mAnuShyakais bhogais sampannatamas sa manuShyANAM parama Anando sa manuShyANAm paramas Anandas .atha ye shataM manuShyANAmAnandAH atha ye shatam manuShyANAm AnandAs sa ekaH pitR^iNAM jitalokAnAmAnando sas ekas pitR^iNAm jitalokAnAm Anandas .atha ye shataM pitR^iNAM jitalokAnAmAnandAH atha ye shatam pitR^iNAm jitalokAnAm AnandAs sa eko gandharvaloka Anando sas ekas gandharvaloke Anandas .atha ye shataM gandharvaloka AnandAH atha ye shatam gandharvaloke AnandAs sa ekaH karmadevAnAmAnando ye karmaNA devatvamabhisampadyante sas ekas karmadevAnAm Anandas ye karmaNA devatvam abhisampadyante .atha ye shataM karmadevAnAmAnandAH atha ye shatam karmadevAnAm AnandAs sa eka AjAnadevAnAmAnando sas ekas AjAnadevAnAm Anandas yashcha shrotriyo.avR^ijino.akAmahato yas cha shrotriyas avR^ijinas akAmahatas.atha ye shatamAjAnadevAnAmAnandAH atha ye shatam AjAnadevAnAm AnandAs sa ekaH prajApatiloka Anando yashcha shrotriyo.avR^ijino.akAmahato sas ekas prajApatiloke Anandas yas cha shrotriyas avR^ijinas akAmahatas atha ye shataM prajApatiloka AnandAH atha ye shatam prajApatiloke AnandAs sa eko brahmaloka Anando yashcha shrotriyo.avR^ijino.akAmahato sas ekas brahmaloke Anandas yas cha shrotriyas avR^ijinas akAmahatas .athaiSha eva parama Ananda eSha brahmalokaH atha eShas eva paramas Anandas eSha brahmalokas samrAD samrAT iti hovAcha yAj~navalkyaH | iti ha uvAcha yAj~navalkyas so.ahaM bhagavate sahasraM dadAmy sas aham bhagavate sahasram dadAmi ata UrdhvaM vimokShAyaiva brUhIty atas Urdhvam vimokShAya eva brUhi iti atra ha yAj~navalkyo bibhayA.nchakAraH atra ha yAj~navalkyas bibhayAm chakAra medhAvI rAjA sarvebhyo mA.antebhya udarautsIditi || 33 || medhAvI rAjA sarvebhyas mA antebhyas udarautsIt iti Meaning: He who, amongst men is perfect in physique and prosperous, the ruler of others and who is fully blessed with all human enjoyments, represents the highest joy among men. This human joy multiplied a 100 times = 1 unit of the joy of the manes who have won the world of theirs. The joy of these manes, who have won the world of theirs, multiplied a 100 times = 1 unit of the joy of the gandharvas, then a 100 such joys which are in the gandharva loka = 1 unit of the joy of the karmadevas who have attained their godhead through the performance of karmas like sacrifices. This joy of the karmadevas multiplied a 100 times = 1 unit of the joy of the Ajana devas (gods by birth), as also the joy of one who is well versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. The joy of the

Ajanadevas multiplied a 100 times = 1 unit of the joy of Prajapati as well as the joy of one who is wellversed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. The joy of in the world of Prajapati multiplied a 100 times = 1 unit of joy in Brahmaloka (Supreme Brahman) as well as the joy of one who is well-versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. Then this indeed is the Supreme Bliss. This is the state of the Supreme Brahman, O King! Said Yajnavalkya. “I will give you a thousand cows, sir, please instruct me further about the means for liberation itself”. Then Yajnavalkya was afraid that the intelligent King was constraining him to communicate all knowledge by putting such further questions. In this passage, by showing the difference between the joy of human beings and others in samsAra and the joy of paramAtma, yajnavAlkya expounds the nature of the supreme bliss of paramAtma.By enumerating the Anandas of samsArIs and comparing it to brahmAnanda, the aim is to establish that moksha sukha is to be sought after. “rAddhaH” means established. “samdRiddha” means flourishing on account of youth and others. These traits are not that of muktas, but only for a baddha jIva who has attained all possible human bliss. The human being is the master of all other beings and is full with all the various joys of all human being, and such joy is one unit of manushyAnanda. One hundred times the bliss of a manushya is one unit of the bliss of the manes, gandharvas, karma devas etc. Regarding Ajana devas, Karma devas and the reference to the mukta now. Devatva is of 2 kinds – That which is materialized by karmas and that which is materialized by origination. That which is realized in the beginning of the kalpa itself is Ajana siddha. This is also explained in other ways – that which is gained by upAsaNa is ajanasiddhaM and all else is karma siddhaM. “shrotriya” means “shruta vedAnta”, avRijina – sinless. Therefore, he is akAmahata. One who has been divested of all desires on account of upAsaNa ie, a mukta. The one unit of joy of the karmadevas as well as the Ajanadeva is likewise one unit of a mukta characterized by these virtues. Karmadevas attained devatva through performance of sacrifices and Ajanadevas attained their devatva by Ajana siddha/upAsaNa in samsAra. The mukta has attained moksha through performance of sacrifices and upAsaNa and hence, the mukta is characterized by the same qualities but is completely sinless, free of desire and a shrotriya. Thus there is a vast difference between the bliss of a mukta and the bliss of a karma deva and ajana deva, and the idea is that the mukta is not deficient of these Anandas, ie, all Anandas are included in muktAnanda (due to his sarvaj~natva). yadApi muktAnanda – AjanadevAnandayO mEru sarshaparvath tAratamyasit anyUnathvE tAtparya drishyaM. atha ye shataM prajApatiloka AnandAH–Here “prajApati” signifies Chaturmukha Brahma. The bliss of Brahma multiplied a 100 times is the bliss of Brahman as well as that of a mukta. sa eko brahmaloka Anando yashcha shrotriyo.avR^ijino.akAmahato – Here, “brahmalOka” signifies the supreme bliss which was elaborated in the previous mantra as “eSha brahmalokaH”. Thus, this is a reference to the Supreme Brahman and not Chaturmukha Brahma. This is enough to dispel the dvaita interpretation, for it makes no sense, again, to say “This is the bliss of Brahman and a mukta Brahman”.

This also corroborates the fact that “sa eko brahmaNa Ananda” in the Taittiriya Upanishad refers to Brahman as well, and not Chaturmukha Brahma as imagined by the dvaitins. By the words “Te ye shataM, sa Eka” it should not be doubted that the bliss of Brahman is limited. The idea is to show that the bliss of Brahman is far greater, infinite and cannot be known or spoken fully by shAstras (as it is infinite). It is known from the shAstras that there are a number of Chaturmukha Brahmas in several Universes and the bliss of Brahman is infinite and greater than the bliss of all Brahmas. Thus, the Ananda mimAmsa of the brihadAraNyaka, like the Taittiriya,onlyserves to illustrate the infinite nature of brahmAnanda and that of a mukta, who also enjoys the Ananda of Brahman, as opposed to samsAric Anandas that are finite. The very fact that yajnavAlkya says “This is the Supreme Bliss” at the end (athaiSha eva parama Ananda eSha brahmalokaH…) shows that this section, like the Taittiriya, has the same purpose of proving that brahmAnandaenjoyed by muktas, is far greater than alpa-Anandas of samsArisby comparing it to the latter, thus exhorting the seeker to yearn for moksha and discard the desire for samsAric sukhas. KHYATI VADA (At the outset, I’d like to clarify that we are not very acquainted with “asat-anyatha khyAti vAda” of dvaita, but we believe ourselves to be proficient in the “sat/yathArtha khyAti vAda” of Vishishtadvaita. Therefore, we will explain the VA position while relying on the author’s descriptions of the dvaita position. We do however understand that the Dvaitin argument of “asat-anyatha khyAti” postulates that unreal objects can be perceived, whereas sat-khyAti vAda of Vishishtadvaita says that all perception is of the real.) PP: Using Panchikaraṇa, Sri Shankara had set out to say that the "real world is an illusion". Now Using Panchikaraṇa, Sri Rāmānuja had set out to say that "the illusory silver is real"? And then to substantiate such a ridiculous position, various types of statements are made which are ambiguous, uncertain and ambivalent. Statements like "It is not an illusion", "A tiny amount of silver is there in shell", "a few properties of silver are there", etc. SD: This is a severe misunderstanding of srI rAmAnuja’s position. Vishishtadvaita says none of these things. Either the author has made this up in his head, or it may be that the person he is attempting to refute has an incoherent grasp of Vishistadvaita, which has led to both parties chasing ghosts. The premise of “yathArtha khyAti” is that whatever is seen, is real. Nothing unreal can be seen. Error in terms of mistaking one object for another is due to a non-apprehension of the properties that distinguish two objects and apprehension of very real properties that are similar in the objects, thus meaning that nothing unreal is seen. The reason for non-apprehension of some properties of the object is due to external factors, defect in the eye of the person, or because the properties that are cognized overpower other properties, etc.

PP: Just because my shirt is green and the leaf is green, one cannot say that a tiny amount of leaf is in my shirt or a tiny bit of my shirt is in the leaf. SD: What makes the author think Vishishtadvaita says this? Has he consulted any works of srI rAmAnuja or srI vedAnta desikan? Bizarre. PP: Let us get to the root of their confusion and resolve it once for all. ---- (author proceeds to elaborate basic chemistry). SD: We are skipping this for brevity. This is already getting long without having to address the author’s “refutation” of a non-existent philosophy. PP: Both the shell and the silver are having the same physical properties (only some, like both are solid, both have the silver color and both have silver luster/shine.) So we are PERCEIVING THE SHELL PROPERTIES THAT ARE EXACTLY SAME AS THE SILVER PROPERTIES AND SO SOME GET THE ILLUSION THAT IT IS SILVER. There is no such thing as minimal property, maximum property, etc. The commonness of some physical properties is the root cause for the illusion. SD: Let us see how VA explains the silver-shell analogy. All the above is accepted by Vishishtadvaita as well. A person sees a shell and mistakes it for silver. Why? Because he had a very real apprehension of certain very real properties of the shell such as luster etc, which are exactly the same/similar as that of silver. What is the source of error? The error is the non-apprehension of the properties of shell, such as it is not metal,it is brittle, etc which led to the non-apprehension of difference between shell and silver. In effect, this is sat/yathArtha khyAti vAda. What is cognized is real, and error is due to non-apprehension of other reals. Nothing unreal is cognized. No “illusory silver” or no “real silver” was seen, but “real luster” was cognized. This is the position of Vishishtadvaita, and to that extent, sat khyAti includes within itself akhyAti (non-apprehension) as the root cause of error. In tattva mukta kalApa, srI vedAnta desikan merely gives the reason why shell has similar/same properties of silver like luster, etc. It is because during panchikaraNa, there is an intermixing of elements, and thus a bit of the basic elements that are present in silver, are present in shell. It very much seems like the author has mistaken this statement to mean that Vishishtadvaita’s khyAti vAda attributes panchikaraNa to every example of error, or that panchikaraNa itself is the cause of error. This is not so. PP: There is difference in other physical properties like silver is ductile and malleable, where as shell is brittle. Their densities are different. Various kinds of ornaments can be made from silver. No such ornaments can be made from the shell. Their chemical properties are different. The difference in the chemical properties is what confirms that it in deed is an illusion. There are no two things about it.

So, let us leave the illusion as illusion and real as real, rather than making one's own unsustenable judgement. SD: And who is denying this? It is precisely due to non-apprehension of these properties, and apprehension of a real property (luster), that the error was made. This is what Vishishtadvaita declares as well. However, if dvaitins say “illusion” means perception of an unreal entity, that is refuted (as mentioned above, we are not very conversant on asat-anyatha khyAti). For illusion is merely an error of nonapprehension and the apprehension of real properties only is admitted. There is no cognition of “unreal silver” at all. When the error is explained by non-cognition of real properties like brittleness etc of shell and the cognition of only some very real, similar/same properties of shell, where is the scope for saying an illusion is unreal? It is also a real cognition, with error lying in mere non-cognition of other reals. PP: If we take the mirage, the ludicrousness hits one's face, if any one makes a claim that there is a tiny amount of water in the mirage. There is some common property between mirage and water in terms of appearance. SD: Exactly. Error is due to a perception of a very real common property (the shimmering effect) between mirage and water, and non-apprehension of other properties that distinguish mirage from water. This is the Vishishtadvaitic position. What about it? PP: First of all quintuplication or panchikarana has nothing to do with sat khyāti at all. I dont know why a desperate attempt is made to make some connection.

SD: Who said it had anything to do with khyAti vAda? The issue of panchikaraNa was a passing statement by vedAnta desikan to state that silver and shell are both having similar properties because in the remote era, there was an intermixing of basic primordial elements. It is an explanation for *one* example, and even that is not an explanation or justification of the khyAti vAda, but only a reason why shell and silver may have some similar properties. PP: Also, they get dragged towards the truth "we cannot say that a bit of the person was in the boulder". Then as if there is a reluctance to see the truth, a weird statement is given - "However, this is due to cognition of attributes in boulder that can be seen in the person, and neglecting to see the entire boulder." SD: The author, I believe, is referring to the man-boulder example given by most vedAntins to explain the theory of error. Basically, the example is this - A person sees a boulder in the night or from a distance and mistakes it as a human. What is the cause of error? The error invloves apprehension of similar/same properties of human and boulder, namely, the shape of the boulder resembles that of a human, or from a distance, the shadowy silhouette of a boulder is seen and thought to be a human (otherwise, this error would not be made). So, here too, what is seen is real.

The cause of error is non-apprehension of properties that distinguish the boulder from human, ie, it is made of stone, it is inert, etc and this non-apprehension due to some real extraneous factor like bad eyesight, distance or night-time. Here, again, all cognition is real and error is due to non-cognition of specific properties. Elementary. No-one is saying a “bit of person is in the boulder”. Ridiculous. Rather, the boulder may be shaped like a human, or something like that (like Mt Rushmore), it has to have some real property for the cognition. PP: (Talking about the example of Putika and Soma given by srI rAmAnuja) A substitute is not an illusion and not even a topic for Sat khyāti vāda. What a confusion !? It is talking about the substitute in caseof unavailability of Soma. There are also instances where the substitutes may not even possess a close resemblance. SD: Hmm, the Soma-Putika example? Let us see. A concoction is prepared using Putika, and a person mistakes the ingredient to be Soma. This is the error. What is the cause for error? The error involves cognition of certain real properties like color, taste, etc of Putika containing concoction which are similar to Soma concotion. The error is due to non-apprehension of the properties (eg., subtle differences in the above properties, or wholly new properties like viscosity, flavor, etc) in Putika concoction that differentiate it from Soma concoction.Basically Soma and Putika have similar properties that warrants the substitution of the latter with the former. A perfectly logical position, any sane person would admit. PP: The real issue is that they dont understand the basics of properties of the substances. The sugar block is white, the lime stone is white and so, will they say that a bit of limestone is in sugar block or vice versa? Cant they understand that the similarity in appearance is caused by both having same kind of luster. See above for more details. When the luster is same, it is puerile to say that "a bit of silver is present". Only small children, who do not have sufficient vocabulary will use one set of words for another set. SD: Only small children would think Vishishtadvaita would even state this as their position. Jayatirtha, while arguing against Vishishtadvaita, seems to have misunderstood the Vishishtadvaita position. He opines that Vishishtadvaitins claim a bit of soma is in putika and vice versa and takes this as a pUrvapakSha, which is patently wrong. The one reference to panchikaraNa has been explained already, and it has no relation to explaining the cause of error, or to the numerous other examples for khyAti vAda. This “refutation” by the author is chasing ghostsas usual. That’s how far removed it is from an actual refutation of Vishishtadvaita. PP: If a person is seeing the shell-silver for the firts time and is quite unaware of the existence of such a shell makes the error of mistaking it for silver. The luster makes the viewer cognize the shell as silver. Appearance is only one of the physical properties and there is illusion.

SD: Note the underlined sentence. And here is the error in the Dvaita position. They say “luster makes the viewer cognize the shell as silver. This is wrong. There is no cognition of silver at all. There is indeed, no cognition of an unreal element, as silver is not even there. Rather, there is only cognition of the very real luster of the shell, which is mistaken as silver due to non-apprehension of other real properties of shell. When error is adequately explained by cognition of a real (luster) and non-cognition of another real (brittleness and other shell properties), why then bring in an extra assumption, “he cognized (unreal) silver”? Did he really see silver? No. Did he see the entire shell as “unreal” silver caused by seeing luster of shell? No. Did he see real luster of the shell, didn’t see other properties of the shell and simply thought it was the luster of silver? Yes. Only real is cognized. PP: The yellowness is not there in the table, but he sees the yellowness, as simple as that. Every thing that is very obvious is masked out. A lot of noise is created. The cause for perceiving the yellowness (like jaundice, bile) is mentioned. When he sees yellowness, he does not see whiteness, naturally. Right? How can a person see both whiteness and yellowness in the same object at the same time, when he is jaundiced? he will see only yellowness, even though it is white. The yellow tableand the white table appearing yellow have same attributes for the jaundiced person. Seeing yellowness that is not there, seeing silver that is not there, seeing water vapor that is no there are all clear-cut examples of illusion and giving the causes or giving the common properties will not mask the truth of their being illusory phenomena. SD: A lot of noise is only created by the author. Nobody sees yellowness that is not there or silver that is not there, for unreal things cannot be cognized. We have explained how only real things are cognized, as follows: 1) In the silver-shell analogy, real luster of shell is taken to be luster of silver, and thus the person thinks he saw silver, though in reality he only saw the real luster of shell. There is no cognition of “unreal silver” or “seeing shell as silver”, since seeing real luster itself explains the cognition. “Illusion” is perception of a real thing only, but mistaking it as another due to non-apprehension of other properties. Nobody says, “I saw unreal silver instead of shell, so that was the error”. Rather, the say, “I thought it was silver because I saw only the real luster of the shell”. 2) In the mirage-water analogy, one sees the real “shimmering” property of the mirage and thinks it is water due to non-cognition of the properties that differentiate the mirage and water. There is no apprehension of “water vapor that is not there”. Now, the example of jaundice. A jaundiced person sees everything as yellow. Is he seeing yellowness that is not there? Nope. Is everything yellow for real? Nope. Here is the explanation:

If the person with jaundice sees a table which is white in color, the yellowness of the bile in his eyes, which is REAL, travels via the rays of the eye and is superimposed on a white table. Thus, there is a perception of REAL yellowness originating from his bile and a perception of REAL table, on which the REAL yellowness is superimposed by the rays of the eye. The whiteness of the table is masked because REAL yellowness of bile is superimposed on the REAL table. So, the two real entities cognized are – 1) yellowness of bile, 2) table. What is the error? It is non-apprehension of the difference between table and yellowness of bile (ie, thinking the yellow belongs to the table) and the non-apprehension of white color of table, which is overpowered by yellow. Thus, there is no cognition of an unreal “yellow table”. Even as per scientific practice, all illusory phenomena like schizophrenic hallucinations are due to cognition of real entities that have a temporary reality (like real images created by the brain superimposed on reality) and not due to perception of unreal things.When a doctor says, “he is seeing things that are not there”, he doesn’t deny the person’s mind has created real images (which have a temporary reality for so long as they persist) and superimposed on permanent reality. Thus perception of these images is real and error lies in non-apprehension of the fact that these images are created by the brain as opposed to being objects in permanent reality. PP: One gives a gun to a child, who does not know how to use a gun and the child shoots its own foot, without the realization that it is going to hurt him only. Occam's razor is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. What Madhvācārya and his followers are saying in case of matters like "perception of yellow table by a jaundiced person, when it is white", is not much different from what a westerner or any person with common sense says. Even Viśiṣṭādvaitins go 80% in the right direction, then they see the opposite camp and so run in a wrong direction and end up in a quagmire. This is pratyakṣa realm. There is zero assumption. SD: Do Westerners say an unreal “yellow table” was seen? Per medical practice, the jaundiced person sees all real objects through the real “tinted glasses” of the yellow bile, as it were, overpowering the real color of the objects.

Westerners do not say “He saw a yellow table”. They say, “He saw the white table as yellow due to jaundice (ie, due to yellow bile in his eye)”. The idea that an unreal “yellow table” was cognized is an extra assumption, though we of the Narayanastra blog don’t need to bring in Western philosophy to explain it.yathArtha khyAti suffices. The only thing childish is the author’s petulant desire to write a 130 page refutation without a basic knowledge of Vishishtadvaita, which is proven from his ridiculous arguments such as “dehanasha” earlier and this one.

Pratyaksha does not allow cognition of unreal objects.

PP: 1. X is jaundiced. 2. X sees a white table. 3. X sees it as an yellow table. There are two possibilities (theoretically) - X has never seen yellow in his life and has no idea how it looks like and does not know the name yellow or X knows what yellow looks like. 4a. X thinks that it is some color, but has no clue (in the first option). 4b. X thinks that it is an yellow table (in the second option). Since it is given that 4b is the case and so it is second option.Now their position. 1 to 3 still hold. Now starts their fun and confusion. Where is yellow? It is in the bile and the effect is in his eyes. He sees yellowness in the table. Does he see yellowness? Yes he does. Is there yellowness in the table. V1. Yes, there is V2. No, there is not V3. There is a tiny amount of yellowness, but he sees lot of yellowness. V4. The yellowness in his eyes is transferred to the table. V5. May be it is not. V6. The superimposition of yellowness is cause by Jaundice (of course that we all accept - we are not talking about the cause – the discussion is simply - is there really yellowness in the table). talking about the cause is to divert the real staright question. One brings in Occam's razor. That will debunk their whole theory. It is a simple case of illusion. Why not accept it? SD: Why complicate a simple concept with V1, V2, etc? The simple contention of Vishishtadvaita is this – “nothing unreal can ever be cognized”. If you accept superimposition of a real yellowness on a real table, then why claim the discussion is whether there is yellowness in a table? Of course, the table is not yellow. Thinking it to be so is the error. The cause of error is simply because of the superimposition of one real on another real and nonapprehension of the difference between the two and another real (white color). Simple as that. PP: The perception is real, of course. The perceived object does not exist there SD: Wrong. The perceived object does exist there. This is common sense. In the case of shell, only real luster was perceived, which still exists for the shell even after the person realizes his mistake. For after true knowledge is obtained, he says “I saw the luster of the shell and thought it was silver (as the luster resembles that of silver). He does not say “I saw silver which is not there”. When he says “I saw that luster of shell, which created the illusion of silver”, he means that he sees ONLY the luster and THINKS it is silver. He does not see unreal silver or an object that does not exist there.

In the case of the boulder, only the real “human like shape/silhouette” of the boulder was perceived. In the case of the yellow table, only the very real yellowness of bile superimposed on a very real table was perceived. In all cases, error is due to non-apprehension of other properties that distinguish the object and the one it is mistaken for. There is no cognition of anything that doesn’t exist. In the BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad, it is averred that even objects in dreams are real since the Lord creates them for experiencing pain and pleasure. Nothing.Unreal.Is.Ever.Cognized.All.Cognition.Is.Real. Capisce? No need for pramANas, common sense is enough. That ends the discussion. I will give a few other examples to illustrate whatever is cognized is real: 1) Error: A person with a diseased eye sees 2 moons instead of one. Is the other moon an uinreal cognition? Ans. The eye has 2 sets of rays usually to cognize an object. One set cognizes the object and the other set cognizes the location of the object. If one eye of a person is defective, one set of rays will cognize the very real moon, and the other set of rays will cognize thevery real location *next* to the moon (up, left, down or right of the actual location depending on the nature of the defect in the eye) and thus, we get the following result: A cognition of the very real moon in its’ very real location by the non-defective rays, and a cognition of the very real *image* of the moon in a very real location *adjacent* to the original location. Thus, one sees the moon and a real image of the same moon, created in a very real manner by the eye. The error lies in nonapprehension of the fact that the second moon is an image of the actual moon and not a second moon. It does not involve cognition of an “unreal moon” or an object that does not exist because the image created by the eye is real. 2) Error: A person thinks the body is the self. Ans. The person sees the very real body moving and breathing and thinks that’s all there is to reality. He does not cognize the self. There is non-apprehension of the differences between body and self, non-apprehension of the properties of the self and only an apprehension of the body, which is the cause for error. 3) Error: A person thinks “ahaM brahmAsmi” means “I am identical to Brahman”. Ans. Easy. Error lies in cognition of the very real statement in the Upanishad and nonapprehension of the actual meaning which involves sAmAnAdhikaraNya. No unreal thing was cognized, as the vAkya indeed does exist. 4) The author thinks Dvaita is superior and Vishishtadvaita is flawed.

Ans. This is due to the cognition of the very real “refutations of Vishishtadvaita” done by his gurus and non-apprehension of – 1) the works written by Vishishtadvaita Acharyas which prove that the actual Vishishtadvaita is different from the pUrvapakShas assumed by his gurus, 2) the pramANAs which prove Vishishtadvaita is superior. One cannot say “I saw an unreal object, ie, dehanAsha pUrvapaksha” as it is a real pUrvapakSha which is seen in their works. The error lies in assuming that it reflects the Vishishtadvaita philosophy when it does not! A doctrine called “tattvavada” postulates that one can perceive objects which do not exist/are unreal. Very curious indeed! Anyway, common sense shows nothing unreal is ever perceived in real life. ON NITYA SURIS PP: Before any position is given, one must be clear of what one means. The word "Suri" means jñāni. If they claim that there are Nityajñānis, surely there are. If they claim that Suri refers to aparokṣa jñāna and Nityasuris are nitya aparokṣajñānis, that is fine too. If they claim that Nitya Suris refer to Nityamukta-s and that they would like to categorize certain devatas as Nitya muktas, they have to come up with the following pramāṇa-s 1. They have to come up with the usage of the term "Nitya sūri". 2. They have to come up with the pramāṇa that says that "Nitya sūri" refers to "Nitya mukta", but not just "Nitya jñāni" or "Nitya aparokṣin". 3. They have to come up with the pramāṇa-s that tells that "Nitya sūris" are the ones, whom they categorize as such. SD: If an explicit pramANa exists, it will be given. At the same time, there is no rule that the pramANa has to be explicit.

In the shAstra, it is said “Rudra, the sahasrAksha, of a thousand eyes was born. Feed him the SatarudrIyam to appease him”. This only means in that context, “The mind which causes weeping due to attachments and sees all external objects (thus is being said to have a 1000 eyes) was born. Engage the mind in meditation of the Lord who is praised in the SatardrIyam to wean the mind away from attachments”. Here, the context determines it is referring to the mind and not to Rudra devata, it becomes clear on studying (one cannot say it applies to Rudra as the devata of the mind, because satarudrIyaM does not appease Rudra as wrongly assumed by many). Similarly, there are some pramANAs which may be amenable grammatically to other interpretations, but nonetheless only talk about one thing due to context. So, if the context and the inherent meaning of a pramANa justifies only one interpretation, while it is grammatically open to other interpretations, then only the former interpretation is taken as correct. The definition of “nitya sUri” is one who is eternally liberated (nitya mukta). The word “sUri” means “jnAni” in the sense of having direct perception of the svarUpa-rUpa-guNa-vibhUtis of Brahman. The term “nitya sUri” refers to one who perceives this eternally, as opposed to muktAs who attain such

unceasing perception only after mukti and baddhas, who may be jnAnIs, but whose perception of brahma svarUpa through yoga is not direct until the last moment close to death (direct perception of his essential nature characterized by satyatvam etc immediately leads to moksha). Simple. PP: They always use the following "OM tadviṣṇoḥ paramam padam sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ" The terms "sadā (always)" and "nitya (eternal)" are not identical. (The author goes on to give examples of why “sadA” refers only to those who are eternally seeing the Lord only as long as they have been in moksha. We skip these for brevity.) SD: We do not merely depend on that one pramANa. The existence of nitya sUrIs is mentioned in the Agama shAstra as well. We will give those pramANAs later. However, let us explain this mantra first. Firstly, nitya sUris are mentioned elsewhere directly, so “sadA” here is taken as referring to them. But we will get to that eventually. Let us first debate the logical issues first without pramANAs. As is usual with the author, he rarely considers context in interpreting statements. The author is right in saying “sadA” can be interpreted as “those muktas who reach mukti and see the lord perpetually”. Gramatically correct. Sometimes, we even include “muktAs and nityAs” in “sUraya:” However, “sadA” necessarily means the nityas due to context as explained in the previous statement. What is the context? Look at the succeeding mantra as well. tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padaṃ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ | divīva cakṣurātatam || tad viprāso vipanyavo jāghṛvāṃsaḥ samindhate | viṣṇoryat paramaṃ padam The first mantra provides a description of vishNu’s paramaM padaM for meditation. The second mantra that succeeds it exhorts the “viprAs” to meditate thus, on the Supreme Abode. Thus, the first mantra is described for the purpose of upAsaNa or meditation in samsAra, which is the injunction of the second mantra. One should meditate on the supreme abode of the Lord as the place where he is surrounded by “surIs” who see him perpetually. To an upAsaka who hasn’t attained moksha, it is not possible to see the millions of muktas who have attained moksha, to meditate on them surrounding the Lord and seeing him, ie, experiencing his qualities. However, the Lord has always given the darShana of being surrounded by nitya sUrIs like Adi Sesha, Garuda, Lakshmi, possessing other nitya sUrIs like Chakra, Shanka, all AyudhAs, Vaijayanti, etc even in material abodes like kArya vaikunta/vishNu loka. It is quite possible to conceive the Lord surrounded by

these sUrIs for the purpose of upAsaNA. Thus, the “sUrIs” in the mantra should rightly be interpreted as “nitya sUrIs” only, with “sadA” referring to eternality. Not only this logic is valid, but there is a section in the Lakshmi Tantra which is a direct upabrahmaNa to this vAkya. This will be quoted later below. Note that the body of the Lord is different to the Lord. The various weapons and ornaments are nitya sUrIs (eternally liberated jIvAs) who have assumed the forms of chakra, shanka, vaijayanti, etc to serve him at all places, states and times. Similarly, Garuda, Lakshmi and Adi Sesha serve him. “Yatra pUrve Saadyaas Santi DevA” is a similar pramANa. Based on context, “sAdhya devAs” refer to nitya sUrIs in a similar manner. Yet another similar pramANa comes from the Linga purANa, vaikunthE pare lOkE sriyA sArdhaM jagatpatiH | astE viSnur acintyAtmA bhaktair bhAgavataiH saha||~ Linga purANa Which says that vishNu, along with his consorts who are nitya sUrIs themselves (shrI, bhU and nIla – mentioned in the AgamAs as well) are surrounded by “bhaktAs” and “bhAgavatAs”. The reason for mentioning “bhakta” and “bhAgavata”separately is to distinguish them as nitya sUrIs (other than the consorts) and muktAs, for otherwise the classification would be redundant. That bhU and nIla are nitya sUrIs and secondary consorts of the Lord after shrI is mentioned by the vishvaksEna Samhita as follows: “yathA mayA jagad-vyAptaM svarUpEna svabhAvataH; tathA vyAptaM idaM sarvaM niyantrI ca tathA ISvarI tathA bhUmisca nIlA ca seshabhUtE matE mama svarUpastu na tayoH guNato vyaptiriSyatE” ~ vishvaksena samhita nIla and bhU devIs (as well as shrI) are said to pervade by their guNas/svabhAva which is nothing but their DBJ. This indicates an all-pervasive DBJ (omniscience) and hence, they are nitya sUrIs as well. While we are at it, let us see this slOka in more detail. In the above slOka, ShrI (Lakshmi) explains how she, being a nitya sUri, is everywhere with vishNu and how, in comparison to the other 2 nitya sUrIs who are his consorts, she is superior in status. When shrI says her essential nature (svarUpa) is all-pervasive, it is not to be taken as meaning that she is vibhU, or that her essential nature is different from other jIvAs, or that it endorses flawed imagereflection theories. There is a similar slOka in the vishNu purANa which says that just as viShNu is sarvagata (all pervasive), she is also omnipresent. Swami Engalazhwan explains that this can be understood in terms of extended application (atidESa nyAya). In pUrva mimAmsa, the logic is used in the context of sacrifices thus – when the slightest

common factor in the shape of word, sense, offering material, devata or the form or other qualifications of these happen to be perceived between 2 sacrifices, the procedure of one should be adopted for the other. In a similar manner, using this nyAya, there is an extended application of the qualities like omnipresence, knowledge, eternal existence and other auspicious qualities present in viShNu, to lakShmi also. This is on account of her inseparable association. Lakshmi is always inseparably associated with the Lord wherever she is, to the extent that she is not spoken of as separate from him. When we say “nArAyaNa is Parabrahman”, the primary lakShaNa is that “the Lord of ShrI is Parabrahman”. All names of the Lord include her. She not only pervades by her DBJ, being a nitya sUri, but pervades with her DBJ in a unique manner that she also assumes forms wherever he is. So, when the Lord, for instance, is visualized as the antaryAmin in the heart, she is there on his chest as usual, in her own unique form.She thus is the only consort who is never separated from him. As a result of her being everywhere with the Lord, she is ISvari, which is reteirated by the vishNu purANa as follows: kAla kaShThAmuhoortAdikAlasootrasya gOcharE | yasya Saktirna Suddhasya praseedatu sa no harih ||” (V.P.I.9.45) All this is their (lakshmi and vishNu) vibhUti. There is nothing higher than they. Both of them are the inner self of everything in creation-good or bad (she being anapAyinee). The vyApti is in the form of her rUpa being everywhere in all beings, along with the antaryAmin and her dharma-bhUta-jnAna being pervasive. In addition to this, the various sUktAs talk of her being able to confer great powers on brahma, rudra, etc and also her being involved in creation, destruction, etc. This only means the omnipresent Lord grants her wishes always, and thus she can grant anyone anything. And during creation, she advises the Lord to be merciful in allotting bodies to jIvAs based on karma, as she is the mediator and mother of all jIvAs, thus she herself is said to create, etc in some places, as the Lord always obeys her. Therefore, on account of all these factors, she does not consider herself as a different entity from the Lord and by virtue of the atideSa nyAya, she says, “my nature is vibhU”. That the above explanation is valid can be seen from another slOka in the vishvaksEna samhita itself, where bhagavAn says: “yathA mayA jagad vyAptaM svarUpEna svabhAvataH tathA vyAptaM idaM sarvaM niyantrI ca tathA ISvarI matsEshabhUta sarvEshAm ISvarI vallabhA mama asyA mamaca seshaM hI vibhUtiH ubhayAtmikA”

(Note: Printed edition of Vishvaksena Samhita does not contain these verses, but they have been quoted by shrI vedAnta desikan in srimad rahasya traya sAra). Here, bhagavAn clarifies that the essential nature of shrI is like that of other jIvAs, ie, seshatva (matsEshabhUta). However, by virtue of her inseparability with the Lord wherever she is, her svarUpa is described as vibhU by using atideSa nyAya and thus, she is the controller of all, the ISvarI and all that is the property of the Lord, is her property as well (since the wife owns whatever the husband has too). In contrast, bhU and nIla do not have these attributes of Lakshmi, though they are also consorts of the Lord. The reason is not because they can’t (being nitya sUrIs, they most certainly could assume similar powers), but because theyhave assumed the roles of being the servants of lakShmi as well. That is reteirated by Lakshmi in the above slOka; they are her servants and so do not have her status. So, the bhEda is not svarUpa bhEda as the author is fond of assuming, but only in the vein of “devotees serve the devotees of the Lord”. As shrI is a mahAbhAgavata, jagan-mAta and puruShakAra-bhUtai, they love serving her too. So bhU and nIla do not appear in their own forms everywhere where the Lord is and they do not take part in the unique functions of shrI. Hence, they are said to not be all-pervasive in svarUpa as the atideSa nyAya is not applicable to them. But they, like all liberated jIvAs, do pervade via their dharmabhUta-jnAna (referred to as “guNa” in the initial slOka) and experience the Lord wherever he is. A liberated self can be disembodied or embodied as it wishes. Swami Engalazhwan also offers an alternate explanation to the atideSa nyAya - BhagavAn is omnipresent by his vibhutva(quality of being unlimited by space, time or object), while she, by her Sakti (powers), even though she is aNu by her nature, being associated with him, can also be considered as omnipresent; “athavA BhagavAn vibhutvEna sarvagatah; asyAstachchaktivaSAdaNutvE’pi tatra tatra sandhAnAt sarvagatatvam uktam. iyam cha sarvagatA”. Here, “sakti” does not refer to pervasion by DBJ, which is already there, but by her powersthe Brahma Purana says her “saktis” are awe inspiring, she herself is the “sakti” of vishNu, she is known as “praNa”, she is the mother of all mantras, etc”. Due to her great powers and being the inseparable “sakti” of Brahman, she is verily described as omnipresent. As she has these saktis and is always inseparable to the Lord (as explained above), her svarUpa is mentioned as vibhU too. Lakshmi Tantra (2.11)also declares “aprthakbhUta-saktitvAt brahmAdvaitaM taduchyatE”, hinting that statements of her being vibhU in svarUpa are due to her inseparability with the Lord. BhagavAn qualified by Lakshmi as an inseparable attribute (Sakti) is considered as one entity (viSiSta-Brahman) in such statements. The text goes on to say that Lakshmi is always with the Lord wherever he is, being his “sakti” and thus identifies herself with Brahman itself. Now, of course, the author accepts Lakshmi as a Nitya Mukta and one who is “samana” with the Lord in co-pervasion. So, he should have no problems with this slOka, if it were not for some niggling issues. “svabhAva” is used interchangeably with “guNa” – thus it refers to the condition of being characterized by a guNa (DBJ in this case). Secondly, it is clearly said bhU and nIla pervade by virtue of their guNAs, ie, DBJ, which makes them nitya sUrIs as well.

Additionally, this is also a proof of dharma-bhUta-jnAna which is referred to by the term “svabhAva” and “guNa” in the above slOka. Also refutes the interpretation of “svabhAvaja” in the Gita by dvaitins as “inherent nature”.That will be explained later. Context is always King. PP: If the nitya suris have already obtained mukti, then they should never take birth here. Except Nārāyaṇa and Lakṣmi, no other devata comes to this earth and performs the acts that are visible to others. Lakṣmi and Nārāyaṇa do not bear physical body and they have jagadvyāpāratva. The mukta jīvas do not have jagadvyāpāratva and do not perform any activity physically and visibly. Lord Krishna says "yadgatvā na nivartante taddhāma paramaM mama" (Having reached that mukta sthāna, that also I own, one does not return to this Earth.). Why should one, who is mukta, take up this physical body again (even if it were for the sake of others) and perform any jagadvyāpāra? SD: Lakshmi does not have jagad-vyApara in the sense of creation, preservation and destruction. Statements of Lakshmi pervading by nature (as opposed to merely DBJ) and creation, etc are by virtue of atidEsha nyAya or her saktitva in her condition of being inseparable to the Lord which was explained earlier. Even the ambhrANi and medha sUktAs can be taken that way, but there is of course, no need – Lakshmi being a nitya sUri, purushakAra-bhUtai and mother of all certainly can directly make anyone a jnAni, etc so the statements in those sUktAs can be taken literally as well. Simply put, Lakshmi only mediates on behalf of jIvAs for the grace of the Lord. Adi Sesha and Garuda are nitya sUrIs like Lakshmi, so they can indeed come to prakrti mandala to serve the Lord as she does, in bodies made of suddha sattva. Being devoid of karma, they are unaffected by prakrti. “Not having a physical body” – if this means they have suddha sattva bodies, then yes, it applies to Garuda and Adi Sesha too. They are here to serve the Lord wherever he is. None of them have jagadvyApara, as they are not the ones with creatorship, IShvaratva, etc which belong to the Supreme Lord. The names “Garuda” and “Adi Sesha”, the forms of eagle and serpent etc are assumed by these nitya sUris eternally out of their own will and are not positions like brahma, rudra, indra, etc. The object of Moksha is to serve the Lord at all places, times and states. This includes serving not only paravAsudeva in sri vaikunta, but also the vyUhas, vibhavas and archa avatArAs.The mukta can exist in an embodied or disembodied form, but the crux of the matter is, his dharma-bhUta-jnAna is infinite and thus he can control several bodies, to serve the Lord in several places.The muktas and nitya sUrIs do not take part in jagat-vyApAra, but they serve the Lord who takes part in jagat-vyApAra. Since the Lord appears in many forms everywhere, they too appear in many forms everywhere to serve him wherever he goes.

That is why the Chandogya says - sa ekadhA bhavati tridhA bhavati pa~nchadhA saptadhA – the mukta, by his omniscient, expanded DBJ, assumes infinite number of bodies to serve the Lord at all places, states and times.If a mukta so desires, he can visit Brahma Loka, Rudra Loka, Tirupati, Srirangam, etc to serve the Lord there. He may or may not be visible to samsArIs. That service is the ultimate aim of moksha is reteirated by the following pramANas which declare “seshatva” as the essential nature/goal to be realized: nAyam dEva na martyO vA na tiryak sthAvarOpi vA / j~nAnAnandamayastvAtmA shEShO hi paramAtmanah//” ~ (MahAbhArata, AshvamEdhika 43-13) The self is neither god nor man, neither beast nor tree. Its essential nature is knowledge and bliss and it is entirely dependent on the Supreme Being and exists solely for His purposes (shESha). Lakshmana says:Bhavamsthu saha vaidehya girisanushu ramsyathe Aham sarvam karishyami jagrathaha svapathascha the (~vAlmiki rAmAyaNa) LakshmaNa tells the Lord “ahaM sarvaM karishyAmi” – he will serve Rama whether he is awake or asleep. Service at all times, places and states is the goal of a mukta and is implied here.BrahmAnanda is bliss derived from such service and experiencing his kalyANa guNAs and thus, it is not wrong to state BrahmAnanda is the goal of moksha as well. There are also statements in shruti which declare that the mukta has free movement in all worlds– “svarADbhavati tasya sarveShu lokeShu kAmachAro bhavati” (~ Chandogya Upanishad 7.25.2) Meaning: He (the mukta) will be a sovereign to himself (ie, dependent on no-one other than paramAtma). He will have free movement at will in all worlds. imA.NllokankAmAnnI kAmarUpyanusa~ncharan (~Taittiriya Upanishad3.10.5). Meaning: ….He (the mukta) will be moving about over these worlds, having food at his will and assuming any form at his will…. (Note: “food” signifies paramAtma who is the object of enjoyment for the mukta). The statements such as “na ca punarAvartatE” and the words of krishNa quoted by the authoronly mean the mukta does not return back *because of karma* and get stuck in transmigration. But he can come back out of his own will to serve the Lord assuming a suddha sattva rUpa, invisible or visible to normal beings (note that such movement in all worlds is by his DBJ only, with the jIva being aNu svarUpa). So there is no contradiction. That being said, the nitya sUrIs specifically assist the Lord everywhere. The forms of Adi Sesha, Garuda etc are assumed by them out of their own will as per the Chandogya statement quoted above. The muktas do not serve the Lord in the same manner (not that they can’t; but they won’t) as they are lower

in status, considering the nitya sUrIs as their gurus out of respect. But they can travel to places like Brahma Loka, Tirupati, Srirangam, etc even after mukti, by virtue of their DBJ assuming many bodies and serve the Lord without being visible to humans. The ananda of different services by nitya sUrIs and muktas is the same since Brahman is one. PP: Further, Lakṣmi says (in AmbhraNIsUkta) "yaṁ kāmaye tam tamugraṁ kṛṇomi tam barhmāṇam tam ṛśim tam sumedhāṁ..." If there are nitya suris (in the sense of VA), then the question of Lakṣmi "making them into suris" does not arise. SD: That refers to Lakshmi making samsArIs great. They can become sUrIs (samsAri jnAnis) and muktAs (liberated jnAnis). Similar statements occur in mEdha sUkta too.It doesn’t refer to nitya sUrIs. The latter are eternally jnAnis. Lakshmi herself is a nitya sUri who serves the Lord as his consort, having assumed a feminine form. PP: Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣat : ato.anyad ārtam which says that everything other than Brahman is 'ārtaM' i.e. subject to misery (and so nitya sUrIs who are free of misery cannot exist) SD: That particular part of the mantra is interpreted as follows: ….na vij~nAtervij~nAtAraM vijAnIyA na vij~nAtes vij~nAtAram vijAnIyAs eSha ta AtmA sarvAntaro eSha te AtmA sarvAntaras .ato.anyadArta.n atas anyad Artam (~BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad 3.4.2) Meaning: Do not reflect upon the reflecting (jIvAtma), do not cognize the cognizing jIvAtma (for he is not the Parabrahman). This which is your Atman itself, is the Atman in all. Everything other than him is perishable or afflicted due to being subject to modification on account of being dominated by karma. The first part of the teaching is that the jIvAtma who is the doer of seeing and other actions that depends on the senses is not to be seen as the doer of the function of prANa and others. That is the Supreme Brahman, who is different to the jIvAtman. “atO anyAd ArtaM” – Other entities than paramAtma who is described as “eSha tE AtmA” is misery. So, jIvAs are not paramAtma. The doubt that nitya sUrIs and muktAs who are not tainted with sorrow cannot be said to be miserable by such a statement (atO anyAd ArtaM) does not arise, as they are not related to the context which is only comparing paramAtma and samsAri jIvAs - “anyashabdasya sannihita prANitRuthvAdimath samsAri jIva parathvAth” – The “anya” sabda only refers to samsAri jIvAs here. The context itself is arguing that the jIva who is the doer of actions based on the senses is not the doer of the function of praNa, etc and is different from the Supreme Brahman. Obviously, this refers to jIvAs only in samsAra since they are the ones engaging in actions based on the senses. The comparison is thus between Brahman and samsAri jIvAs only and the context makes it clear.

If it be further argued that “muktas once experienced misery in the past before attaining mukti, so they can be included in the definition of atO anyAd artaM and thus this encompasses all beings declining the existence of nitya sUrIs”, then the argument is absurd. The muktas are now not experiencing any misery and it makes no sense to include them because they experienced misery in the past as the reality is, there are these entities (muktAs) in the here and now who are free of misery in addition to paramAtma. So, it only refers to those in samsAra as per the above context as well. Absolutism is not the context everywhere. The jIva is often called “paraM” on account of being superior to prakrti, but this doesn’t mean it is superior to paramAtma. Desire is called “paraM” on account of being higher than the senses, mind and intellect only, but is not the highest. Similarly, “everything else is misery” here, as per the context itself refers to the samsarIs only. However, if the above convoluted logic of the dvaitins is still being touted as a “refutation”, it can also be easily dispelled logically as follows. -

The dvaitin says “atO anyAd ArtaM” – Other than paramAtma, everything else is misery. He then says, this denies the existence of nitya sUris by adding the assumption of “until they reach moksha”. So, he interprets the statement as “Other than paramAtma, everything else is misery (until they reach moksha)”. Then, he avers that since everything is in misery until they reach moksha, there cannot exist entities like nitya sUrIs that never underwent misery.

-

To this, the Vishishtadvaitin’s reply is as follows. ShAstra validates the fact that nitya sUrIs do exist. So, we can tweak the assumption made in the above statement to ensure the meaning conforms to shAstra. Instead of the author’s assumption “until they reach moksha”, we use the assumption, “Except those in moksha” and thus, we say, “Other than paramAtma, everything else is misery (except those in moksha)”. Thisrules out all entities residing in moksha sthAna, namely, the muktAs and nitya sUrIs who are residing there and thus only refers to samsAri jIvAs. One assumption replaced by another, with the latter being perfectly logical and seamlessly meshing into the context as opposed to the former assumption.

In any case, the dvaitin’s interpretation, regardless of its’ absurdity, is ruled out completely by the fact that “ArtaM” in “atO anyAd ArtaM” refers to the jIvAtma who is subjected to modification as he is dominated by karma, thus referring to only samsArIs. “ArtaM” which denotes the afflicted jIva here does not refer to a nirvikAra vastu on account of that. Thus, it refers to those (ie, the jIvAs) that are undergoing modifications on account of karma and are thus afflicted – tasya karmakruthasvabhAvavikArathvAth iti bhAva: - Hence, it only refers to samsArIs and excludes muktAs and nityAs who are not undergoing such modifications. In fact, the following slOka is an upabrahmaNaM for this: anityatvam dehahāniḥ duḥkhaprāptirapūrṇatā | nāśaścaturvidhaḥ proktaḥ tadabhāvo hareḥ sadā | tadanyeṣāṁ tu sarveṣāṁ nāśāḥ kecidbhavanti hi ||

Meaning: Association with a temporary body (ie, birth), relinquishing the body (ie, death), acquisition of sorrow, incompleteness (ie, contraction of DBJ) are four kinds of loss or destruction, ie, modification on account of karmas. Sri Hari does not have any of these. All the others (insamsAra) have some kind of loss/destruction/modification (at varying times). Note that this is exactly the same as “atO anyAd ArtaM”. Other than shrI hari, everyone else in samsAra is undergoing some form of destruction or loss. As this slOka says “sarvEshAm nAshAH kecid bhavanti”, it means they are undergoing it now, so the usage of present tense means one cannot take it “muktas also underwent it before attaining mukti”. So, one needs to ensure that the context is taken into account and eliminate muktAs (and nityAs) from the equation, as they are certainly not undergoing any nAsha. Thus, the context refers to samsAri jIvAs only and it means “all (except muktas and nityas) are undergoing nAsha currently”. PP: Let us assume that "sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ" is describing Nityasuris. When people point out the flaws in them, people take refuge in statements like "Even Rama said that he is merely son of Daśaratha", "Nityasuris can pretend that they have flaws", "Nityas and Lord can easily lie, no doubt about it". SD: However, we know rAma is parabrahman from other pramANas. Hence we can deduce rAma was playacting. Similarly, there are pramANas elsewhere as well, that there are nitya sUrIs. The pramANas and explanations are as follows: 1) “Sesha” is the name of the serpent because he embodies seshatvam, which is described as the essential nature of the self according to pramANas quoted previously. Therefore, he is called “Sesha” because he by his actions itself, shows how to serve the Lord at all times, states and places, which is the trait of a mukta and a nitya sUri. In Adi Sesha’s case, it is obviously the latter. Thus, the name itself shows he is a nitya sUri. 2) Parama Samhita (1.48-1.57) of the pAncarAtrasays that after Brahma was born, he had his first vision of the Lord lying on Adi Sesha, with Lakshmi at his feet and Garuda at his side, showing they existed prior to creation. This will be explained later. The Narasimha Purana (57.13), says that before creation, the Lord was lying on Adi Sesha in the milky ocean and then created Brahma. 3) Ahirbudhnya Samhita of the pAncarAtra also gives a clear indication of the two classes of muktas, viz., nityas and muktas who enjoy the form of the Lord, serving him and his consorts in paramapada, the highest abode as follows: “nityair muktair nirAbAdhair nirmalAnanda lakshaNaih| sAkshAt paSyadbhih ISAnam nArAyaNam anAmayam||~ Ahirbudhnya Samhita (9-30) (Note that in the above slOka, nitya and mukta are in plural. So one cannot say “nityair” only refers to Lakshmi who is the sole nitya mukta other than the Lord for dvaitins)

Besides all these, there is more proof in the 17th chapter of Lakshmi Tantra(rahasyOpAya prakASha adhyAya) in the section on “paramapada svarUpaM”. In this adhyAya, Lakshmi describes the Supreme Abode to Indra. The context of the slOkas and the descriptions remove absolutely any lingering doubt over the existence of nitya sUrIs. Reproducing the relevant section below: yattatpurANamAkAshaM sarvasmAtparamaM dhruvam | yatpadaM prApya tattvaj~nA mucyante sarvabandhanaiH ||(~ Lakshmi Tantra 17:14) Meaning: (Lakshmi tells Indra) That ancient Akasha (paramapada) is the highest of all and eternal. Attaining that abode, those knowers of Brahman are freed of all bondage. sUryakoTipratIkAshAH pUrNendvayutasaMnibhAH | yasmin pade virAjante muktAH saMsArabandhanaiH ||(~Lakshmi Tantra 17:15) Meaning: Those who have cast away their samsAric bonds, free of earthly desire, abide there in splendor, like tens of millions of suns and millions of full moons. indriyAcchidravidhurA dyotamAnAshca sarvataH | aniShyandA anAhArAH ShADguNyatanavo.amalAH ||(~Lakshmi Tantra 17:16) Meaning: They are free from all defects of the indrIyAs and exude luster in all directions (infinite dharma-bhUta-jnAna). They do not release anything and partake no food. They have the six attributesbeginning with sama, dama, etc and are pure, being free of sin (apahatapApma). These slOkas rule out any doubts that the section only references the supreme abode as opposed to other material abodes of the Lord such as “amukta” or “kArya” vaikuntha. The six attributes are sama, dama, uparati, titiksha, shraddha and samAdhAna which are the “satsampath” or Atma guNas. ekAntino mahAbhAgA yatra pashyanti nau sadA | kShapayitvAdhikArAn svAn shashvatkAlena bhUyasA || (~Lakshmi Tantra 17:17) Meaning: That is where, after exhausting the results of their deeds (puNya and pApa), the highly privileged ekAntins (those who are steadfast in their conviction that the Lord alone is the means and end) eternallyenjoy the sight of (ie, offer services to) us (Lakshmi and Narayana) exceedingly. (Note that when it is said the liberated “see” vishNu-lakshmi in moksha, the qualifying attribute of “sadA” is added here. This again proves why “sarvaM ha pashyaM pashyati” cannot be interpreted as “The mukta sees the Lord”.)

“Seeing” means “Experience” of the Lord along with his consort which in turn means meditation and performing services to them as a couple rather than seeking the Lord without Lakshmi’s mediatorship. As Lakshmi is the mediator for all jIvAs, even in the liberated state, that protocol is followed, that they worship bhagavAn by first beseeching Lakshmi to get his favor. The muktas thus see the form of the Lord as Sriya pathi. vedhaso yatra modante shaMkarAH sapurandarAH | sUrayo nityasaMsiddhAH sarvadA (sarvajnA) sarvadarshinaH || (~Lakshmi Tantra 17:18) (In some recensions, “sarvadA” is replaced by “sarvajnA”) Meaning: There the Brahmas, Shankaras and Indras (samsArIs who attained mukti) and the eternally liberated ones, ie, nitya sUrIs (surayO nityasamsiddha), all rejoice (in the experience of the Lord) and are ever omniscient (or, are omniscient and perceive/experience all auspicious attributes). “sUrayO nityasamsiddhAH” – Those jnAnIs whose sAdhaNa is eternally accomplished, or those who are eternally contented – this refers to the nitya sUrIs. Besides Lakshmi, Ananta, Garuda and Vishvaksena, there are many nitya sUrIs like Gajanana, Kumudha, Kumudhaksha, the dvArapAlakas, the apsarAs, etc. The Agamas reference them in places by name. “sUrayO nityasamsiddhAH” should be taken together as opposed to “sUrayaH” and “nityasamsiddhAH” being separate, as even the brahmAs, rudrAs, etc are sUris. This cannot be interpreted anyway else based on context, as later statements on Adi Sesha, Garuda and Vishvaksena make it abundantly clear as well. “sarvadA (sarvajnA) sarvadarShiNaH” – In some recensions, “sarvadA” is replaced by “sarvajnA”. If taken as “sarvajnA sarvadarShiNaH” – It means “they are omniscient (sarvajnA) and on account of that, perceive, ie, experience (sarvadarShinaH) all attributes of the Lord as per “soshnutE sarvAn kAman…” . In such a case, “sarvadarShinaH” is clarifying that on account of omniscience, there is cognition of *all attributes* (sarvadarShinaH), since there is no end to the Lord’s attributes, as opposed to limited enjoyment. This would again avoid the flaw of redundancy in comparison to the previous and succeeding slOkas which have respectively clarified that the Lord with Lakshmi and the Lord’s nature is experienced in moksha. If taken as “sarvadA sarvadarshinaH”, it means they are ever omniscient (sarvadarShinaH), as their DBJ never again gets contracted due to karmas. The majority of recensions contain “sarvajnA” however. Note that “sarvadarShiNaH” does not mean they see “Sarva”, the Lord. Because, firstly the previous slOka clarified that ekAntins see lakshmi-nArAyaNa. Secondly, the very first line of the next slOka declares that these liberated jIvAs are seeing the supreme nature of vishNu. “sarvadarShinaH”thus refers to omniscience or expanded DBJ here or the perception of all attributes of the Lord, which is again due to omniscience since there is no end to his attributes.

By mentioning there are many Brahmas, Rudras and Indras, etc, it is not implied that there is some “tAratamya” or that the liberated selves have identities of these gods even in moksha. The logic is simple. When someone says “my grandfather is in heaven”, it does not mean that liberated jIva exists as his grandfather now. The term “grandfather” applied to the self only when associated with the grandfather body and this body was cast off prior to attaining heaven. However, to identify that the self which was in the grandfather body has attained heaven, it is mentioned that “grandfather is in heaven”. So, this only means that as Lakshmi is teaching Indra here, she is implying that moksha is filled with jIvAs who were formerly the Brahmas, Rudras and Indras of the world. Indra himself is a deva, so she uses the examples of devas to show that they eventually attain moksha.It does not mean they remain Brahmas, Indras or Rudras there, as such identities are cast off before attaining liberation. It also does not mean only those who were Brahmas, Rudras and Indras in samsAra are there, but includes all beings who performed sAdhaNa of bhakti yOga or prapatti. That will be mentioned later. Brahma, Rudra and Indra are the topmost beings in samsAra, so Lakshmi mentions them to clarify that the jIvAs occupying these topmost positions in samsAra attained mukti. It highlights the insignificance of brahma-padavi, etc in comparison to moksha. Then, Lakshmi distinguishes these muktAs from the“sUrayO nityasamsiddhAs” or the nitya sUrIs who are eternally liberated. Basically, she is saying, “Look Indra, millions of jIvAs who were Brahmas, Rudras and Indras like you are there now in moksha having been liberatedby their upAsaNa, in addition to the nitya sUrIs. They are all omniscient and enjoying all of the Lord’s guNAs”. Additionally, note that the names used to denote the devas also show their sAdhana by which they were liberated. Indra is called “purandara” or “destroyer of the body (pura)” – ie, he performed karma yoga and by virtue of detachment to results, understood that the self is distinct from the body and rid himself of dehAtma bhrama. Shiva is “Shankara” because he, as a viSva-guru, causes bliss upon all beings by instructing them in jnAna yoga which is meditation on the essential nature of the self (seshatva) and understanding the sharIrAtma bhAva. Brahma is a knower of the vedas and by virtue of meditation on bhagavad kalyANa guNas (bhakti yoga) detailed in the vedas, attained mukti. Of course, this does not mean Indra only performed karma yoga, or shiva only performed jnAna yOga --- all 3 beings attained mukti by virtue of upAsaNa or prapatti which are the direct means. It is only that their relative prowess and repute at karma, jnAna or bhakti yOgAs is highlighted by their names. Thus, there is a contextual reason for calling these devas by these names. It also shows that they do not have these identities now in moksha, but are referenced by their former positions in samsAra prior to attaining mukti. vaiShNavaM paramaM rUpaM sAkShAtkurvanti yatra te | aShTAkSharaikasaktAnAM dviShaTkArNaratAtmanAm || ShaDakSharaprasaktAnAM praNavAsaktacetasAm |

jitaMtAsaktacittAnAM tArikAniratAtmanAm || (~Lakshmi Tantra 17:19-20) Meaning: There, they (the aforementioned ones) view the supremenature of vishNu. There too abide those who are perfected in the 6 syllabled, 8 syllabled and 12 syllabled mantras (corresponding to vishNu, nArAyaNa and vAsudeva mantras), the praNava,the mantra starting with “jitantE” (a khilA sUkta of the Rg veda), thosewhose minds are immersed (meditating) in the tArika mantras. Since “vaiShnavaM paramaM rUpaM sAkshAtkurvanti yatra tE” declares that these liberated jIvAssuch as the brahmas, rudras, indras and nitya sUrIs (mentioned in the previous slOka) are seeing the nature of vishNu directly, and also because earlier“ekAntino mahAbhAgA yatra pashyanti nau sadA” referenced the liberated seeing the divya-dampathi as well, it clearly shows “sarvadarShinaH” in the previous slOka refers to omniscience in moksha. The continuity of the slOkAs is this – the ekAntins are “seeing” the form of the Lord as Lakshmipathi, ie, they perform services to them as a couple by seeking Lakshmi’s mediatorship. On account of such services, they by their omniscience, are granted experience of all the attributes of the Lord as indicated by “sarvadA (sarvajnA) sarvadarShina” (rUpa-guNa-vibhUti anubhava). Then, it is clarified that they have the sAkshAtkAratvaM of brahma-svarUpa directly as well. “rUpaM” here means “nature”, not “form”. The term “paramaM” is used to signify it refers to the Lord’s nature (svarUpa) as opposed to his body. It also avoids redundancy since “ekAntino mahAbhAga yatra pashyanti nau sadA” already mentioned that the form of the Lord as Lakshmipathi is being seen. (Here “sadA” is not used to say they view vishNu’s nature eternally because it is already clarified in the earlier slOkas. This slOka too has the qualifying term of “rUpaM” which specifies what they view. Again, an indication that “sarvaM hA paShyaM paShyati:” cannot be interpreted as “They see the Lord called Sarva”.) This slOkagoes on to state that besides those muktAs who were Brahmas, Rudras, and Indras before attaining mukti, there also reside those who performed upAsaNa in samsAra by various vidyAs corresponding to the mantras mentioned. They have alsoattained moksha and are residing here. The same logic of “my grandfather is in heaven” or “the pAndavAs are in moksha” is applied here. Just as those selves are no longer associated with a grandfather body or a pAndava body in moksha, but are still mentioned as such for the sake of identification, similarly these upAsakas are not restricted to their respective mantrOpAsaNa in moksha, but rather that particular mode of upAsaNa was adopted by them while in samsAra, to attain mukti. Why specifically mention these upAsakas here? Because Lakshmi is later on (in this Agama) going to describe to Indra how to meditate on these mantras to attain moksha and as such, it is relevant to point out here that such upAsakas have attained mukti. anutArAprasaktAnAM yat padaM vimalAtmanAm | anantavihageshAnaviShvaksenAda yo.amalAH ||

madAj~nAkAriNo yatra modante sakaleshvarAH | tatra divyavapuH shrImAn devadevo janArdanaH || anantabhogaparya~Nke niShaNNaH susukhojjvale | vij~nAnaishvaryavIryasthaiH shaktitejobalolbaNaiH || AyudhairbhUShaNairdvyairadbhutaiH samalaMkR^itaH |(~ Lakshmi Tantra 17:21-23) Meaning: In that place, besides those (muktAs) who are of pure intellect (vimalAtmanAm), who are engaged inthe anutAra mantras(anutArAprasakthAnAM), there is rejoicing among the pure (amalAh) beings including Ananta, Garuda, Vishvaksena and all those who execute my commands (to serve the Lord in various ways). That is where the Lord of SrI, who has a divine (suddha sattva) body, the God of Gods, Janardhana, rests on the resplendent and blissful couch which is the coils of Ananta. He is richly adorned with weapons and divine ornaments (all reflective of his) jnAna, bala, vIrya, aishwarya, Shakti and tejas. Here, we have clear evidence that Ananta, Vishvaksena and Garuda are nitya sUrIs in the supreme abode. Note that they are mentioned separately here, as opposed to clubbing them with those jIvAs who were formerly Brahmas, Indras and Rudras. Also note that Ananta, Garuda and Vishvaksena are also mentioned in the singular and not in plural like those muktAs (the brahmas, rudras, indras) were, showing that Ananta, etc are not positions in samsAra, but nitya sUrIs who take avatAra among devas in samsAra mandalam as well. This refutes any theories of “Rudra becomes Sesha in his next birth” or “Adi Sesha is a baddha jIva” or “infinite seshas/garudas have attained mukti”. Note that “vimalAtmanAm” is used to denote the muktas while “amala” is used to denote the nitya sUris (Adi Sesha, Garuda and Vishvaksena). Why 2 different words for the same meaning? It is not exactly the same meaning. “Atma” denotes buddhi or intellect, ie, dharma-bhUta-jnAna. These muktas have attained the state of DBJ being completely free of karmas and hence are termed “vimalAtmanAH”. In contrast, the nitya sUris are called “amalAH” because they have eternally remained so. In addition, “amala” means that not only are they pure, but they also impart the purity to others (as gurus). These nitya sUrIs are the ones who are the highest in status. Again, there is no svarUpa tAratamya, it is only a mark of respect due to the services they perform, just as a sishya and a guru can have the same jnAna, but the sishya always serves the guru. Even in moksha, everyone other than Lakshmi (for whom the Lord himself is the guru) needs a guru to beseech the Lord on behalf of them for services; it is just a vaidika vidhi that is followed out of their own will. And since a devotee of the Lord worships other devotees of the Lord, other nitya sUrIs always worship Ananta, Garuda, Vishvaksena and Lakshmi as well. ShrI vedAnta desikan clarifies in srimad rahasya traya sAram – the muktAs never clamor for the services of the nityas (such as becoming Lord’s mount, bed etc) because there is perfect understanding and co-

operation in delegation of services. On account of perfect knowledge, considering the nityAs as their AchAryAs and also because every type of service confers the same amount of bliss (ie, infinite Ananda), such conflicts never arise. Lakshmi commands them to do services for bhagavAn and they obey. There is a tAratamya in status, because the philosophy of serving the devotees of the Lord is practiced and she is considered their guru on account of her role as purushakAra-bhUtai. The idea is that Lakshmi is the nitya sUri who haseternally assumed the role of being the mediator for all baddha jIvAs to attain the Lord. Since the nitya sUrIs are also part of the jIva-koti who serve the Lord, they set an example for the baddhas by considering her as their mother and mediator as well. Thus, a guru parampara begins with vishNu  Lakshmi  Other nitya sUrIs  AchAryAs. Mediatorship of Lakshmi in moksha is of the form of allotting jIvAs to perform different services to the Lord. But there is no svarUpa-tAratamya as imagined by some, since it is merely a “division of labor” with each kind of labor conferring the same result – experience of the bliss of Brahman. panchAtmaNa suparNa pakshirAjEna sEvitha: sArUpyamEyushA sAkshAthsrivatsakRtalakshmaNa sEnAnya sEvitha: samyagvishvaksEna dIpyatE:(~Lakshmi Tantra 17:24-25) Meaning: He (the Lord) is served by the King of Birds, SuparNa, representing the 5 (mantrAs or prANas) and formally attended by the glorious commander of the Lord’s retinue, Vishvaksena, who is shining, has a form similar to the Lord (in appearance and it being suddha sattva) and bears a (similar ornament to) srivatsa. Again, both Garuda and Vishvaksena are clearly mentioned as nitya sUrIs, in the singular and separately from “Brahmas, Rudras and Indras” mentioned earlier. Vishvaksena resides in a suddha sattva form with 4 hands and a gem on his chest in srI vaikuntha, so he is said to resemble the Lord. Vishvaksena commands the army of the Lord who are also nitya sUrIs in paramapada, as evidenced by the slOka: yasya dvirada vaktrAdyAh pArisadyAh parassatam | vighnam nighnanti satatam visvaksEnam tamAsrayE ~ “We salute the elephant faced gajanana, the nitya sUri and the army of nitya sUrIs in thousands, headed by the commander Vishwaksena, who is the destroyer of obstacles to the realisation of Brahman (sriman nArAyaNa).” One should not ask why Lord needs an army in paramapada. The jnAnIs who serve Brahman, despite knowing he and his divine abode are unconquerable, fuss over him like a spoiled child in love of him, and in their jnAnAnubhava, they literally forget he is unconquerable and remain watchful to protect him.

These pramANAs are sufficient to show that nitya sUris exist, that Ananta, Garuda, Vishvaksena and Lakshmi along with many more (door-keepers, apsarAs, etc included in “sUrayO nityasamsiddhA” earlier) are nitya sUrIs. There are several more pramANas in the Agamas, but unfortunately we do not have access to the texts in their entirety at the moment. This will do. PP: (Trying to prove that Rudra becomes Adi Sesha in his next birth, thus implying Adi Sesha is a baddha jIva)

sthitaprajño'pi yastūrdhvaḥ prāpya raudraṁ padaṁ tataḥ | sāṅkarṣaṇaṁ tato muktimagād viṣṇuprasādataḥ || Meaning: Even though one who is known as ūrdhva (He is also known as Ugratapa) is sthitaprajña (jñāni), first obtained Rudra Padavi, then Saṅkarṣaṇa (śeṣa) padavi and thereafter from the grace of Lord Viṣṇu obtained mukti. According to them (Vishishtadvaitins), padam does not represent padavi, but some state of Bhakti yoga, attached to a vyūha murthy of Viṣṇu. So, sāṅkarṣaṇaṁ padaṁ is bhakti yoga attached to vyūha mūrthy Sankarshana. Then what is Raudra padam ? What Bhakti yoga is it and which vyūhamūrthy is that attached to? SD: The interpretation is wrong, by both the Dvaitin and the Vishishtadvaitin he is refuting, it would seem. Vishishtadvaita would not interpret that as referring to any yOga, wonder where that came up. The real meaning, according to Vishishtadvaita, has been provided by our AchAryAs and is as follows: sthitaprajño'pi yastūrdhvaḥ prāpya raudraṁ padaṁ tataḥ | sāṅkarṣaṇaṁ tato muktimagād viṣṇuprasādataḥ || Meaning: “A stithaprajnA (One who is unaffected by changes), who is also (api) Urdhva (one who has risen above desire), obtained (reached) the abode belonging to Rudra (Raudra PadaM), then the abode of SankarshaNa (SankarshaNa Padam) and thereafter obtained mukti by the grace of vishNu”. “Padam” refers to literal abodes. This is an upabrahmaNa for the mantras like “tatpuruShAya vidmahE mahAdevAya dimahi tanno rudra prachodayat” and “puruShasya vidmahe sahasrAkShasya mahAdevasya dhImahi .tannorudraH prachodayAt.h” which say Rudra provides knowledge to the cEtana to attain the Lord. Basically, the gist of these mantras and the purANa sloka mean: 1) The upAsaka who is sthitha prajna and Urdhva first attains KailAsa, the abode of Rudra 2) By the grace of Rudra, he attains the abode of SankarshaNa. It is well known that the upAsya mUrthy of Rudra is SankarshaNa.

3) Following this, he attains mukti. There are pramANas in the AgamAs which state that the vyUhAs have their own lokas. To quote srI vedAnta desikan in srimad rahasya traya sAra: bhava-vyUha-lOkAdi prApti kramam sollumidangaLukkum ..." Context : shrI vedAnta dESikan explains that, those pramAnams stating that mumukshus attain the vibhavalOkAs (mediate upon vibhava mUrtIs) and then attain vyUha lOkAs (meditate upon vyUha mUrtIs) and finally attain moksham (ie. paramapadam alias SrI VaikuNTam) is a viSEsha vishayam (specific/special instance) for a particular adhikAri adopting certain Brahma vidyAs and is not for all upAsakAs. This Garuda PurANa sloka likely pertains to upAsakas who do rudrOpAsaNa, ie, meditation on paramAtma as the antaryAmin of Rudra as detailed in Upanishads like the atharvasiras. Rudra being an AvEsha avatAra of bhagavAn, this means it is a meditation on vibhava rUpa, as mentioned by vedAntadesikan earlier. They attain Rudra loka, where Rudra is their guru and by his grace, attain SankarshaNa, following which they attain moksha. PP: They ignore the context, they ignore the purpose and they do all kind of gymnastics to support a position that is untenable. SD: Dvaitins freely ignore the context of Ananda mimAmsa (brahmavidApnoti paraM, sa eko brahmaNaH Ananda…), ignore the context of bhUma vidya and say things like “this mantra now equates nArAyaNa to aniruddha” and they now claim Vishishtadvaitins ignore context? Pot. Kettle. Ring a bell? Like the blind refuting the blind, the author refuted an interpretation that was wrong with another wrong interpretation, I suppose. Can’t blame the author, but assuredly, we do not do “gymnastics”. Our position is far more logical than mere “gymnastics”. PP: There is also NaradIya purāṇa quote that supports this. "mahādeva parejanmaMstava muktirnirūpyate" (Oh Mahadeva, after completing another janma (which is śeṣa), yourmukti is to take place). SD: That sloka does not say “another janma which is sesha”. It only says another janma, so no need to ad lib to force an interpretation on the shAstra. Rudra himself, being a sankarshaNOpAsaka and meditating on Narasimha (who is sAkshAt sankarshaNa as well as vibhava rUpa), attains SankarshaNa loka in the next birth, which then leads to moksha. Appropriate puNya earns you Rudra padavi itself as opposed to just a birth in the abode of Rudra it

would seem. Rudra as well as the upAsakas that attain his loka are meditating on SankarshaNa, so they attain the latter’s world before attaining moksha. PP: If the argument "Brahma was created after ādi śeṣa, as he was created while the Lord was lying on ādi śeṣa and so ādi śeṣa is nitya Suri", then as we all accept Lakṣmi is greater than Brahma, we will have following contention – "Lakṣmi was created after the gods and demons during samudra mathana by those gods and demons, and so all those gods and demons are nitya suris". Another factor is that the Viśiṣṭādvaitins should not have any difficulty with this as they believe that every jīva is eligible for mukti, what is the big issue in making those gods and demons as nitya sūris !! It is one disaster after another ! SD: *Sigh*. Skip the sarcasm. The point has been proven and it is clear that the author is trying to dodge the issue. Already tired of typing so much! Adi Sesha existed before Brahma was born and is senior to Brahma. This is seen in the Parama Samhita of the pAncharAtra Agama as follows: AsId idaM tamObhUtaM aprajnAthaM lakshaNaM aprathavaryamavignyEyaM prasupthamiva sarvataM tatra yOgamayIn nidrAM AsthAya paraM puma …… lokabhIjaM sasarjAgrE pundarIkaM sithaprabhaM……sRjathasmin vidhAthAraM chaturmukhaM ……. tathA ca vihitE jnAnE manOmahiravartatE athApashyat paraM devaM kshIrasAgarashAyinaM anantabhOgashayyAyAM shayithaM pankajEkshanaM shankachakragadApadmAn dhArayantaM chaturbhujaM (~ Parama Samhita, PancharAtra 1.48-57) Meaning: In such darkness, the Supreme One (Narayana) assuming the sleep of Yoga, remained long in that contemplation; the self-luminous One thought of bringing about creation. Then, taking the form of a Yogin, the Lord created the seed of the Universe in the form of a lotus…In this Lotus he created VidhAtha (Brahma) with four faces ….Having in this manner created all the worlds, Brahma, the great yOgi, in unwavering contemplation, began concentrating his breath. In that condition arose in his mind a doubting enquiry regarding all that was around him. Springing from out of that doubt, there came a sudden flash upon his mind. He then saw that God of Gods, lying on his couch in the Ocean of Milk. He, the Lotus-Eyed Lord, was in bed on the body of Ananta (Adi Sesha), with four arms bearing the conch, discus, mace and lotus… Note that this mentions the Lord was lying on Adi Sesha when he created Brahma. Not just the Parama Samhita. In the Narasimha Purana, we have: nArAyaNa purA devO jagatshRshtA jalOpari sushvApa bhogiparyankE SayanE tu shriyA saha:

tasya suptasya nAbhou tu divyaM padmabhUta khila tanmadhyE cAbhavad brahma veda vedAnga bhUshaNa (~narasimha purANa 57.13) Meaning: Formerly (before creation), the effulgent god, nArAyaNa, the divine creator of the Universe was lying asleep (yoga nidra) with his consort, ShrI, on a serpent bed in the water. From the navel of that deity lying asleep, originated a huge lotus. Within that lotus sprang into existence Brahma, having the Vedas and Vedangas for his ornaments. Here “bhogiparyanka” refers to Ananta. The parama samhita is even more explicit in this matter as it uses the term “anantabhOgashayyAyAM”. Since Brahma created all the samsarIs, if anyone assumes Adi Sesha was a baddha jIva, it behooves them to explain how did Adi Sesha end up as the bed of the Lord prior to creation of Brahma, and was discovered by Brahma just after he was born? Adi Sesha was present before the creation of Brahma and the Universe, on the Causal Waters, and it implies that he is a nitya sUri as he existed prior to creation (only the Lord and the residents of sri vaikunta, ie, muktas and nityas, exist then). The absurdity of trying to dodge this real truth is seen in the author randomly bringing up Lakshmi’s birth. Lakshmi being born during samudra mathanaM was an avatAra only, as it did not occur during creation of all beings. Similar to how the Lord is born as rAma, krishNa, etc. This birth of Lakshmi is not mentioned in an account of creation, but during an avatAra leela of the Lord (samudra mathanaM). Comparing the scenario of lakshmi being born during the avatAra leela of samudra mathanaM to the shAstric references of adi sesha, etc being present *before creation of Brahma* itself - Is the author deliberately being obtuse? In any case, the same Parama Samhita clarifies that SrI was also there with the Lord when Brahma saw him lying on Adi Sesha as follows: shriyA caraNayOrjushtaM shyAmalaM pIthavAsasaM shrivatsAnkaM prasannAbhaM kaustubhOjvalavakshasaM (~ Parama Samhita, PancharAtra 1.58) Meaning: He (the Lord) was dark of hue, wearing cloth of golden color, SrI, his consort, was sitting at his feet. He was of pleasing color and bore on his chest, the Srivatsa and the Kaustubha There you go. That’s proof enough to assume that SrI’s birth during samudra mathanam, which occurred long after this vision, was an avatAra. Both Lakshmi and Adi Sesha were part of Brahma’s first glimpse of the Lord after creation, both were present before the creation of Brahma who in turn is acknowledged as the first deva and the creator of all baddha jIvAs - thus both are nitya sUrIs who have never been in samsAra. If that was not enough, the parama samhita goes on to describe Garuda as being seen by Brahma as well:

sEvitaM vainatEyEna sannivishtEna pArshvata:(~ Parama Samhita, PancharAtra 1.59) Meaning: Vainateya (Garuda) was seated on his side, constantly serving him. So, Brahma’s first vision of the Lord who created him, was seeing him lying on Adi Sesha in the Ocean of Milk, with Lakshmi at his feet and Garuda at his side. There you go, all 3 are nitya sUrIs. Quite illogical to assume Brahma created them, they immediately went to vishNu’s side and then he saw vishNu for the first time surrounded by them. Every jIva is eligible for mukti, but nitya sUrIs are those who have never been in samsAra, so that label cannot be applied to the mukta. Of course,a mukta is equal in knowledge and bliss to a nitya sUri in all respects, but the nitya sUris are his gurus who have guided him to Brahman and thus he serves even the nitya sUrIs in moksha, as serving the devotees of the Lord is recommended in shAstra. PP: And If śeṣa was there at all times, what happens to following shruti Vākya, “vāsudevo vā idamagra āsīnna brahmā na ca śaṅkaraḥ" "Vāsudeva was there in the very beginning; Brahma was not there, Shankara was not there." (ETC ETC) SD: Only refers to prakrti mandalam which was not there during pralaya. Sri Vaikunta is eternally existing and does not undergo pralaya, so all the nityas and muktas are there even during this time. They are not included as the context only refers to the Lord being the antaryAmin of the subtle state.

PP: If they think that śeṣa existed at all times, what about when the Lord lies down on Banyan leaf during Pralaya. śeṣa was lying somewhere during Pralaya and the Lord did not want to use śeṣa !? SD: Adi Sesha is actually the banyan leaf the Lord lies down on. Otherwise, where did that leaf come from? No second entity, sentient or insentient, that belongs to prakrti, exists during pralaya. Everything is in a subtle state. So, the leaf the Lord lies down on is the nitya sUri, Adi Sesha. It doesn’t violate “eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsIt” as those vAkyAs only refer to the prakrti mandalam and the baddha jIvAs in it; sri vaikunta with its’ muktAs and nityAs do exist even then. Adi Sesha is the couch on which the Lord rests. Since the mukta/nitya can assume numerous forms by his own will (“sa ekadhA bhavati..”~ Chandogya Upanishad), Adi Sesha can be a serpent, a couch, a banyan leaf, etc. If the Lord walks, Adi Sesha is his pAduka. If he sleeps, Adi Sesha is his bed. If he sits, Adi Sesha is the seat. That is what LakshmaNa means when he says “ahaM sarvaM karishyAmi” in the rAmAyaNa. He performs all sorts of services at all times, states and places. The very name “sesha” indicates his essential nature of “seshatva”.

Dvaitins, I believe, quote the episode of balarAma disobeying krishNa as evidence of “ignorance” of Adi Sesha and thus claim he is a baddha jIva. That is explained by the theory of AvEsha. The nArAyaNanIyam and harivaMsha have been quoted by our acharyas and these texts state balarAma is an avatAra of Adi Sesha and the AvEsha avatAra of bhagavAn. The nature of AvESha is svarUpAvEsha (like vedavyAsa) rather than shaktyAvEsha (parashurAma). So, the amSha of bhagavAn in balarAma was very potent and expressive, more so than parashurAma. LakshmaNa in contrast did not have this amSha to such potency (though he too has sankarshaNAmsam). You can also clearly see the stark difference in the behaviour of lakshmaNa and balarAma towards bhagavan as well. The former was a docile servant of rAma, the latter was a bit more independent and disobedient. The reason why bhagavAn appeared as AvESha in balarAma is simple. KrishNa wanted adi sesha as his elder brother because adi sesha had served him well as his younger brother in rAmavatAra. As you know, when a devotee serves bhagavan, he always wants to become a devotee of his devotee. By asking adi sesha to be his elder brother, krishNa could serve him as lakshmaNa served rAma. But adi sesha by nature is a servant of bhagavAn (hence the name “sesha”) and he cannot accept such an offer by himself. The elder brother must always be independent to and accepting of the services of the younger brother. So, what krishNa did was to invest his amSha in adi sesha so that the latter could be born before him. The svarUpAvESha of vishNu in adi sesha allowed balarAma to be bhagavan himself and suppress adi sesha's characteristics at times. It is an endearing trait of bhagavAn that he always wants to imitate his devotees. In krishNavatAra, he imitated lakshmaNa by serving an older brother. He imitated rAmadUta hanumAn by becoming a similar messenger for the pAndavas. He imitated Sita's quality of purushakAratva, ie, mediation for surrender, by doing both purushakAram and becoming upAyam when Arjuna surrendered to him for gitOpadEsam. He also imitated the personality of a perfect guru by preaching Gita and Anu Gita. By "suppress", it is meant that bhagavAn's personality was predominant in balarAma due to the AvESha while Adi Sesha's personality was hidden or dormant. In contrast, veda vyAsa's personality was that of the jIvA, but only his knowledge was a consequence of the AvESha (here, I might say that some people appear to think vyAsa is a shaktyAvEsha, but that seems to be contradicted by the sahasranAma vAkya "vyAsaya vishNu rUpAya" which suggests he is svarUpAveSha). BalarAma is adi sesha and not a higher entity. Not understanding this, the opponent’s tradition claim lakshmaNa was born as balarAma, the older brother, to “lessen” his puNya he earned in serving the Lord. Why would the Lord ever want to do that, is a mystery in the first place. Similarly, they quote the incident of garuDa exhibiting pride in being the Lord’s vehicle and was chastised by the latter to be humble. Having seen pramANas showing garuDa is “vedAtma” and an omniscient nitya sUri, it is clear that these are just examples of bhagavad leelas in which nitya sUris take

part. The incident serves to drive home the message that we should not develop an ego in serving the Lord, and garuDa was acting out of sport like shrI rAma. PP: (Skipping a few irrelevant descriptions of apramANika siddhAntha by the author) Garuḍa is abhimāni devata of Veda. In fact it is even stated that the wings of Garuḍa emanate sāmaveda when he flies. He is a great deity and saying that he is not nitya mukta will not bring down his status…..Just as Shiva is very great, but not all-supreme, same way Garuḍa is very great, vedābhimāni, great devotee of the Lord and yet he is not nitya mukta. This is as per the scriptural statements and there is not a single statement that speaks of nitya muktatva of Garuḍa or śeṣa SD: The Lakshmi Tantra speaks of Garuda and Adi Sesha being nitya muktAs. The Parama Samhita implies it. Besides all these, basic logic is enough to infer it.

Shiva’s all-supreme greatness is also rejected by direct statements indicating he has rajO and tamO guNa and that he is born of Brahma. Garuda on the other hand, is described in the terms of a nitya sUri by his presence during the vision of Brahmain the parama samhita of the Agama (quoted earlier) and by his omniscience, as mentioned below. Besides the Agama, the shruti describes Garuda as “vedAtma”. This appears to be accepted to some extent by the author who says that the wings of Garuda emanate “sAmaveda” and that he is “vedAbhimAni”. However, dvaitins fail to understand the real implication of the statement. That statement means Garuda is the embodiment of the Veda. The Veda is endless and hence, one who is the embodiment of the endless veda, is omniscient (sarvaM ha paShya paShyati:) and therefore, is a nitya suri, since a samsAri deva cannot know the infinite veda or be an embodiment of it. Remember the episode of Indra instructing Bharadwaja about learning the vedas being equal to the fistful of sand from a mountain. Can a baddha jIva ever become the embodiment of the Veda, which implies one bears the endless Vedas that sing of the endless qualities of the Lord? Only an omniscient mukta or nitya can do that, and logically, it is a nitya. Here are pramANAs that signify Garuda as the embodiment of the Veda (Credit: Quoting from Article “Bird of Pray” by Sri Sathagopan Iyengar on Sri Ramanuja Bhakti List): Sri Garuda's entire divine body is made up of the Vedas"SuparNOsi GarutmAn Trivrit tE shira: Gayatram chakshu: StOma AtmA SAma tE tanU: VamadEvyam Brihat RatantarE pakshou yagyAyagyaim puccham cchandAmsi angAni dhishNiyA: saphA: Yajoomshi nAma."(TaittirIya SamhitA-4-1-41) Meaning: “The various metres form his various body parts. The mighty Gayatri is his eyes and Trivrit his head. The venerated Sama vEda forms his torso, VamadEvyam and BrihatRatantaram his powerful wings. StOma is his soul, YagyAyagyiam his tail and his very name is the Yajur Veda.” Swami Desikan reflects this Shruti vakya in his Garuda Panchasat thus-

"nEtram Gayatram UchE Trivrit iti cha shirO nAmadhEyam Yajoomshi CcchandAmsi angAni dhishNAtmabhirajani shaphai: vigrahO VamadEvyam Yasya StOma Atmana: asou Brihat itara garut tAdrisAmnAya puccha: SvAcchAndyE na: prasUtAm shruti shata shikhara abhishtutAtmA GarutmAn". Sri Garuda is likened to a chariot made of Veda mantras, by another scriptural source"Tasya GayatrI JagatI cha pakshou abhavatAm, ushnik cha trishtup cha prishtyou, anushtup cha panktischa dhuryou, BrihatI Eva uktirabhavat,sa Evam cchandO ratham AstthAya Etam adhvAnam anu samacharat" If further evidence were needed about GarutmAn being the soul of Vedas, one has only to refer to the YAga named "Garuda Chayanam" in which the sacrificial pit ("YAga Kundam") is shaped in the form of the Divine Bird and the Lord is worshipped in the form of the sacrificial fire therein. Quoting the SouparNa shruti, Sri Desikan says "vahEyam yagyam pravisEyam VedAn", indicating the Great Bird's resolve to form the basis for sacrifices and the soul of the Shruti. This is why Sri Alavandar too calls him the very soul of Vedas-"VEdAtmA" and the personification of Shruti-"TrayImaya:" There are five forms of Sri Garutman who are the presiding deities of the 5 vital airs, according to Sri SAtvata Samhita of pAncarAtra Agamasatyas suparNo garudas tArkshyastu vihagEshvaraH panchAtmakasya prANasya vikArastyEsha panchathA: (~sAtvata samhita 12.78) The above slOka says that Satya, SuparNa, Garuda, Tarkshya andVihagEshvara are the 5 forms of pakshirAja, each of whom is the presiding deity for PrANa, apAna, vyAna, udAna and samAna.The very next slOka refers to Garuda as “prANa daivataM”. The iShvara Samhita also declares that these 5 forms are the dieties of the5 prANas and the vehicles of the Lord’s forms as Aniruddha, Pradyumna, sankarshaNa, the antaryAmin, etc. These forms of garuDa vary in color, number of arms (2 or 4), etc. The pramANAs from parama Samhita, ahirbudhnya Samhita, were also provided earlier. Therefore, Garuda is a nitya sUri. So is Adi Sesha. The glories of Garuda are given in the suparNa sUkta. It is also reasonable to assume on the basis of the above, that if Garuda exhibits ignorance in the mahAbhArata in any situation, the “embodiment of the veda”, who obviously has knowledge of the infinite veda, is certainly playacting like srI rAma. PP: On what basis are they saying that the word "amānava" refers to Garuḍa…..In either case, it refers to Vāyu deva only. This is the description of archirādi mārga. Vāyu deva is the one who takes the eligible ones thru this archirādi mārga SD: Vishishtadvaita does not say Amanava is Garuda. Wonder where the author got that idea from.

However, amAnava puruSha is a nitya sUri because he takes the jIva to the shores of viraja nadhi, a place that only muktas, jIvas going to mukti and nitya sUrIs have access to. As “amAnava” itself means “One who is not a manuSha”, the term “manuShya” indicating all beings of this world, it is clear he is another eternally liberated servant of the Lord entrusted with this job. The other devatas including vAyu, in the archirAdi, are not liberated though. And vAyu certainly is not amAnava, there are no pramANAs for that. Though we do not deny vAyu is one of the baddhas like agni, etc who lead the jIva through archirAdi. PP: (Referring to Kaushitaki Upanishad’s description of eternally liberated apsara stris and dvArapAlakas welcoming the mukta jIva in srI vaikuntha) The apsarastris and dwarapalakas could have been in amukta vaikuṇṭha or if they are in mukta vaikuṇṭha, then they must have reached there only after completing their sādhana and so not nitya-muktas.

SD: Firstly, it is a description of mukta vaikuntha. That is made clear by the Upanishad which describes the abode as being reached by archirAdi. Secondly, if they were also muktas who reached there and became apsara strIs/dvArapAlakas, what happened to the previous muktas who occupied those positions? For the Upanishad only talks of 2 dvArapAlakas and 500 apsara strIs. Did the previous mukta jIvAs assuming those roles disappear into thin air? Or did bhagavAn “dismiss” them from their duties suddenly and appoint new muktas (in which case, why is this not mentioned in the Upanishad)? Or didn’t those roles exist before then? If so, why would the apAuruShEya veda which is true at all times describe it? And what will happen eventually to the muktAs who are now serving as apsarAs? No. Logically, they are eternally liberated nitya sUrIs who prefer to serve the Lord in this manner, by welcoming his devotees to moksha sthAna. Service to the devotees of the Lord is as good as service to the Lord. The statements of the Kaushitaki Upanishad being referred to by the author are as follows. They describe how the eternal servants of the Lord welcome the mukta: taM pa~nchashatAnyapsarasAM pratidhAvanti shataM mAlAhastAH shatamA~njanahastAH shata.n chUrNahastAH shata.n vAsohastAH shata.n kaNAhastAstaM brahmAla~NkAreNAla~Nkurvanti sa…. (~Kaushitaki Upanishad) Then five hundred Apsaras go towards him (the mukta), one hundred with garlands in their hands, one hundred with ointments in their hands, one hundred with perfumes in their hands, one hundred with garments in their hands, one hundred with fruit in their hands…. Clearly, these apsarAs are not “positions” assumed by baddha jIvas as this is moksha sthAna. It cannot be mukta jIvAs who attained moksha and then took up these positions, for that raises logical conundrums like “what happened to the muktAs who were apsarAs before these mukta jIvas attained mukti and became “new” apsarAs”? or”How long will these muktas hold the position of apsarAs and when/why will they be dismissed for new muktAs?” or “Why doesn’t the eternal veda talk about what happened to those muktAs who were dismissed”? or “If there were no apsarAs before these mukta jIvAs attained mukti and became apsarAs, why would the eternal veda that is true at all times say so”?

And there is also this, AgachChatIndraprajApatI dvAragopau tAvasmAdapadravataH He (the mukta) comes to the door-keepers Indra and Prajapati; they run away from him. These are the door-keepers to the hall of Brahman in paramapada. The same logic as explained for apsarAs apply here, they are nitya sUrIs. Now, do you have any idea why they are specifically called “Indra” and “Prajapati” and why they run away? You probably don’t know why, so here is the explanation. “Indra” etymologically refers to one who is wealthy. In this case, a nitya sUri has the wealth of service to the Lord. “prajApati” means “Master of Prajas”, where “praja” signifies attachments to the fruits of actions. In this case, the actions are the services performed to the Lord in moksha, and the attachments are the desires to experience Ananda from that service. Being a “master of such attachments”, means, the nitya sUri has transcended such desires, ie, he does not perform services for the desire of Ananda for himself, but only serves the Lord because it is his nature. His sole desire is to see the Lord happy, not to desire for any happiness for himself. Because, the jIva is a sesha by nature, it means he must serve the Lord selflessly without aspiring for any Ananda, and even if the Lord is evil as opposed to being full of kalyANa guNAs (an impossible hypothetical situation), his nature is that of seshatvam to the Lord, even then! Of course, despite the muktas and nityAs serving the Lord selflessly and not for Ananda, they nonetheless experience Ananda because of such service automatically, since the Lord by his own volition grants it to them. They cannot avoid experience of his kalyANa guNAs in moksha, so the shAstras say that experience of kalyANa guNAs is the highest puruShArtham. That is the significance of the names. Why do they run away? The job of a dvArapAlaka is to guard a place. SrI vaikuntha is known as “aparAjitha”, it cannot be conquered. By running away from the mukta, they are paying their respects to the mukta (maryAda) and hinting that the mukta has conquered the unconquerable supreme abode by his devotion and knowledge. This is enough to show that nitya sUrIs exist. The fruit, garlands, etc offered to the mukta by apsarAs in moksha, by the way, are made of suddha sattvam. PP: There are two kinds of sāttvika mukta/mukti yogya jīvas - muktas and amuktas. (Long description of Dvaita siddhAntha follows) SD: All incorrect.Maybe barring a few statements also acceptable to Vishishtadvaitins. PP: (Regarding the “paramaM sAmyaM shruti”) - On one side, they are saying "JivA becomes equal in 6 gunas with Brahman" and again they say "Everything is given by Brahman to the jivA, making the jivA totally dependent on Brahman. Hence, no sAmyam in 'status' as alleged by MAdhvAs." Thus the

above passage itself says both ways. And then the first part above contradicts with what is said in opposing Sri Vyasatīrtha. SD: Hmm, maybe the author has been confused by the person he is quoting. All is said is that the jIva is absolutely equal in certain attributes to Brahman, but is dependent on Brahman for these attributes existing in him, ie, it is Brahman who makes the jIva manifests these attributes. He can take it away from the jIva if he wishes (which he obviously does not ever do as he loves the jIvAs). jIva is thus always dependent on and is a slave to Brahman, whereas Brahman alone is independent and the master. In addition, these attributes are used by the jIva to serve Brahman without interruption in moksha. Here is the Vishishtadvaitic interpretation for paramaM sAmyaM shruti which was provided earlier: yadA pashyaH pashyate rukmavarNaM kartAramIshaM puruShaM brahmayonim.h | tadA vidvAn.h puNyapApe vidhUya nira~njanaH paramaM sAmyamupaiti ||(Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.3)|| Meaning: When the Seer of Brahman sees the Supreme Self Vasudeva, the ruler of the Universe, having an effulgent auspicious divine body, the creator of the Universe and the cause of the unmanifested , then that knower of Brahman shaking off virtue and sin, being freed from the taint of matter, attains supreme similarity. “pashyatIti pashya:” – this refers to a seer of Brahman. “rukmavarNaM” means that the Lord has a nonmaterial divine body (made of suddha sattvaM) as referenced in “AdityavarNaM”. He is BrahmayoniM. The term “purusha” signifies the Supreme Vasudeva.“paramaM sAmyaM” indicates the manifestation of the 8 attributes of apahatapApma, vijaraH, vimRutyu, vishOka, vijighitsa, apipAsa, satyakAma, satyakankalpa as well as similarity in form (assuming bodies made of suddha sattva) with Brahman. It does not include equality in status with the Lord or his other kalyANa guNas, as muktas serve the Lord using these attributes. There is no equality in status certainly. Because the Lord has the above 8 attributes by virtue of his own independence, whereas the jIva attains moksha and manifests these attributes only by the grace of the Lord, and thus the apahatapApmatva, etc of jIva is dependent on the Lord. Sri vyAsatirtha, as far as I can gather, invents a position of Vishishtadvaita by claiming we accept “equality of status” and proceeds to refute this invented pUrvapakSha. So he has basically invented an imaginary rival darShaNa and refutes this imaginary darShaNa. How can a tradition that opines seshatvam to be the svarUpa of a jIva, ever say that jIva is equal in status to Brahman? It is the reluctance of dvaitins to accept that their gurus just did not have a good grasp of Vishishtadvaita as a pUrvapakSha which causes them to insist that this is “Vishishtadvaita’s position” even when we say it is not! The Ananda sAmyaM issue has already been proven earlier. Anandam comes from the infinite experience of the infinite kalyANa guNAs of Brahman. In that regard, the sUtra,

“Bhoga Maatra Saamya Ligaanchaa” Clearly says that thereis equality only in terms of the enjoyment of Ananda(Bliss) which is that of the Lord and not in other terms. It does not mean the similarity is only in terms of enjoying Ananda that is limited for the jIva and infinite for paramAtma (thus implying Ananda bhEda) as the dvaitins think, but the sUtra only seeks to clarify that per the shruti vAkyAs such as “sOsnutE sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipascitA:”, the mukta’s highest similarity is the equality of bliss only with Brahman arising from experience of the infinite auspicious qualities of Brahman, but there is no share in “jagatvyApAra”. As Ananda and jagatvyApAra are compared, the former is equal with Brahman for the jIva and the latter is not there for the jIva, hence Brahman and jIva are similar in terms of equal enjoyment of bliss, but dissimilar in that only Brahman has jagatvyApAra. Using the dvaitin’s analogy, “The King is like a Lion in the Battlefield”, some qualities are absolutely equal in similarity. Here, “sAmya” means there is equality of Ananda experienced by jIva and paramAtma. Just as King and Lion have differences, similarly, the jIva’s Ananda is derived from experience of Brahman, whereas BrahmAnanda is from his own nature and qualities. One is dependent, the other is independent. And so on. One has no share in jagadvyApAra, the other is jagatkAraNa. All these are differences between jIva and Brahman. Truly, this analogy is quite reasonable if used in the correct manner. Statements like “sarvaM ha paShya paShyati:” confirm omniscience of muktAs which provides the capability to enjoy all the qualities of Brahman (sarvAn kAmAn). FINAL CONCLUSION PP: The eternally dependent, relatively insignificant jīva can not have the same bliss as the Lord…….. What is worse - as per them even the ones who hate the Lord all the time get mukti and they also get the same amount of bliss as the Lord - is that not strange ? SD: Nothing is strange once it is clear that differences, hating and liking the Lord, are due to contractions and expansions of DBJ to different degrees. In moksha, all jIvAs have equally extended, infinite DBJ and the essential nature of existing for the sake of the Lord, thus willingly serving him. There is no svarUpa bhEda. Those who get mukti do not do so by hating the Lord, so the last part makes no sense. PP: The root cause for their confusion is getting mixed up between visual similarity and existence of actual thing itself. They think that some mistake a silver colored shell to silver itself because a small amount of silver is in the shell. The cause for the illusion is not because a small amount is there, but because there is visual resemblance. The absurdity of their argument can easily be seen this way. If a tiny miniscule amount of silver can become the cause for illusion, then a substance known to have lot of sliver must definitely become the cause for illusion and must have much higher resemblance. The product silver oxide, which actually contains silver, does not resemble silver at all. It is dark brown.

So, it is a misguided notion that a small amount of presence is needed for resemblance or a resemblance indicates a small amount of the substance being there. A mirage does not contain small amount of water. SD: The root cause for the confusion of the author is an improper understanding of yathArtha khyAti vAda. He is refuting a theory which is not professed by Vishishtadvaitins. Nobody says a small amount of silver is in the shell, but there is indeed, as you say, a visual resemblance in that the luster of the shell which is similar to the luster of silver, is cognized. The error lies in apprehension of real object, viz., luster that resembles silver and non-apprehension of other qualities of the shell that differentiates it from silver. The reason for apprehending some qualities and not others is due to several extraneous factors – eyesight, distance, overpowering trait of one attribute like luster etc. There is no cognition of “unreal silver” or anything unreal. That is all we say. No need to get into tongue twisters over a simple concept. PP: Is DBJ svarūpajñāna? According to them - no. Is it vṛtti jñāna? According to them - no. Then what is it? It is defined with some characteristics of svarūpajñāna, some characteristics of vṛtti jñāna and vagueness is brought in with examples to describe it. It is like prakāsha. It is like something that flows in. It is like some thing that flows out. Jñāna can increase or decrease. But instead of saying increase or decrease, they say "contract or expand". What is its purpose - some how justify "Ananda sāmya"? To support one untenable position, another antiscriptural and illogical concept is brought in. The continuation of DBJ into mokṣa is not only unsupported, but it goes against scriptures. "na pretya samjñā asti" (Nothing other than svarūpajñāna, is carried to mokṣa). SD: There is nothing vague about DBJ. There is no other purposeother to simply declare what shAstra teaches. No ulterior motives, unlike random, untenable, illogical and anti-scriptural interpretations of “ahaM” as the Lord, “sarvaM” as the Lord, “neha nAnAsti kinchana” as “Lord’s head = Lord’s feet” without regard for context. All definitions are exacting, it is the vagueness of the author’s mind that refuses to comprehend a simple tattva such as this. The pramANas for omniscience and assuming infinite bodies in moksha are pramANAs for DBJ. Separate pramANAs are also provided. Enough on the subject.DBJ is not defined “with some characteristics of svarUpa jnAna” as the author avers, for “some characteristics of svarUpa jnAna” which are defined by dvaitins do not become vishishtadvaitic explanations. svarUpa jnAna is that which reveals itself, DBJ illumines itself and external objects to the jIva. Contractions and expansions of DBJ find pramANAs in the shAstra through vishNu dharma, chAndogya Upanishad and other proofs provided earlier. svarUpa jnAna remains avikAra. “Increase” or “decrease” happens to DBJ which is the same as “expand” or “contract”. Do not know what is the confusion here over a simple concept. One is a substratum (svarUpa) and the other is the inseparable attribute (DJB) that is obviously different.

The untenable, anti-scriptural and illogical stand of Dvaita in attributing Ananda bhEda in moksha was exposed by their ludicrous interpretation of the Anandavalli earlier.Again, pot, kettle, etc. The author loves dramaticising for effect, it would seem. Keeps using “illogical, anti-scriptural, etc” when that is mostly from his side. "na pretya samjñā asti"has already been explained to indicate the absence of the knowledge of dehAtma bhrama earlier. “Only svarUpajnAna is carried into moksha” – what a ridiculous interpretation. How do we “carry” it into moksha, like a woman carrying a pot? Why even bother to say that when svarUpajnAna is but existence and without it, a jIva is non-existent! It is silly to say only “svarUpa jnAna” is carried into moksha, for one cannot cognize external objects by mere svarUpa. DBJ is the inseparable attribute of every sentient entity. PP: How can they (archa avatatAra) be jaḍa(śuddha sattva) and Lord's incarnation at the same time? Also before the sculptor made it, was it śuddha sattva or it becomes śuddha sattva later on? Again an untenable position. This was discussed in detail inside this article. SD: This argument itself assumes the body of the Lord is non-different from the Lord, which is not even established yet by the author. The body of the Lord is different from the Lord and thus it can be “jaDa” while becoming his body. That is to say, the divyAtma svarUpa of rAma/krishNa, etc is different from his body which is made of suddha sattvam, is insentient and is decorated by nitya sUrIs like sudarshaNa, pAnchajanya, etc who have assumed those forms. So, the body of the Lord in archa avatAra is also different from him, and all these bodies (para, vyUha, vibhava and archa) are all made of suddha sattva. When the Lord enters these bodies and transforms mere mishra sattva prakrti into suddha sattva prakrti, then it is an “avatAra”. Matter can be transformed from one state to another. So saying that ordinary prakrti becomes suddha sattva upon consecration by the power of the Lord is quite logical. PramANAs for archa avatAra were already provided. Nothing is “untenable” other than the author’s “refutations” born of flawedarguments and a vivid imagination. PP: Just because one is inside a thing and controls a thing, it does not have to be the body of the person. SD: True, that is why the Upanishads like the brihadAraNyaka and subala, and the smriti, take the trouble to clarify that not only he is inside the self and prakrti, and controls it, but the latter two are his bodies, implying utter dependence and only existing for the sake of Brahman, ie, seshatva. PP: Also if the universe is Lord's body, when Pralaya happens, the universe is annihilated. So, God has dehanāsha. So, he becomes kṣara !! Also as the universe undergoes transformation, we have to say that the Lord's body is mutated.

SD:Except, when the Universe is annihilated, it only means that the Universe which is the Lord’s body is “kshara”. Since the Lord, who is akshara, is different from his body, he doesn’t become kshara. Again, the author assumes the Lord is identical to his body, which he is not. Out of all the absurd “refutations” thrown at Vishishtadvaita by the Dvaitins, this is the weirdest yet. So what if dehanAsha happens? So what if the jagat which is his body undergoes transformations/mutations? He is not identical to his body, and he has no karma whereby he experiences pains and pleasures of the body, or requires a body, does he? The Lord is different from his body. The shAstras only say that the Lord is “avikAra”, ie, he remains without blemishes and full of all perfections everywhere. Jagat which is his body, which is distinct/different from him, can of course undergo pralaya, etc. But since he is “apahatapApma”, he is unaffected by it, having assumed the body out of own free will to make the jIvAs and jagat exist. They cannot exist without him; he can exist without them. “DehanAsha” is only a doSha if – 1) Lord is identical to his body, 2) Lord has karma and hence feels pain/pleasure due to changes in his body, 3) Lord derives some benefit from his body, 4) If the Lord associates with the bodies by force as opposed to his own will to make them exist, 5) If the Lord cannot exist without his body. None of these are true. The shAstras do not anywhere stipulate that the Lord’s body is unchanging. It only says Lord, who is different from his body, is unchanging. Being devoid of karma, he is not affected by changes to his body. The VishNu purANa states, “jagat cha sah”. The Universe is vishNu. By this, it is meant that he who is the indweller of the Universe which is his body is vishNu, as names denoting the body extend to the self by sAmAnAdhikaraNya. So”jagat” refers to the antaryAmin of Jagat. The position is explained in the purANa itself as, ‘He is the self of all beings. He has the universe as his form, as he is imperishable (VishNu PurANa. 1-2-68). It means that he is the self of all beings, and has the universe as his form, because he is imperishable. The purANa further adds “tat sarvam vai harEs tanu: [vishNu purANa 1-22-38] – All this is the body (tanu) of Hari”.The implication is that though vishNu, the supreme Brahman is imperishable, there is nothing contradictory in his being one with the universe in the sense of having it as his body. The self and the body are two distinct entities and thus neither becomes mixed up with the attributes of the other. Nor does vishNu have any karma whereby he becomes affected by such association. The above is summarized by bhagavad bhAshyakAra in srI vedArtha sangraha. His own auspicious suddha sattva forms he assumes in his 5 states (para, vyUha, etc) also undergo changes like vAmana to trivikrama. Basically, prakrtis which constitute the Lord’s bodies are of two types, Mishra sattva and suddha sattva. Mishra sattva undergoes transformations like pralaya, whereas suddha sattva undergoes transformations like change of form, size, etc. Such changes do not affect his essential nature and attributes as he is devoid of karma and associates with his bodies by his will. PP: If the great sinner, because of his hatred or the Lord all the time effectively thinking of the Lord all the time and so gets great puṇya and goes to mokṣa, then by the same principle, all the smaller sinners acquire smaller puṇya get entitled to go to the heaven.

SD: Hmm, Vishishtadvaita does not say sinners get moksha. It might be this way: If someone says “I hate nArAyaNa”, he gets hell to work off the pApa karmas. But because he unknowingly said “nArAyaNa”, the lord takes it as an excuse (“he said my name”) and makes him be born (after experiencing hell and working off his pApas) in a birth conducive to understanding the greatness of the Lord. If he takes that chance and realizes the greatness of the Lord, then he may embark on bhakti yOga or prapatti and eventually attain the Lord. If he, by his karma-vAsanas, does not take that chance, the Lord may banish him to lower worlds where he may never get a chance again. There is an example in the vishNu dharmOttara purANa as well as to how the Lord considers unintentional acts as “puNya” and awards us with virtous births with chance to undertake further sAdhaNa - Queen Lalita of Vidarbha, was the most favoured among all the 300 wives of the king of Varanasi, but far from being conceited spent most of her time tending the lamps in the various shrines attached to the Palace. She explained her favoured position to her co-wives by reference to the events of a former birth which she could remember well. She had been born as a rat that lived in a temple dedicated to Viṣṇu by Maitreya a royal priest. One night during the month of Kārttik she was attempting to steal and eat the wick of a ghee lamp when she heard the mewing of a cat. She had a heart attack from terror and while she lay dying her head happened to raise the wick of the lamp and re-kindled it. For this act of unintentional merit she was reborn in her exalted position. So, we do not say sinners attain moksha. The example of Ajamila and Lalitha only shows the great grace of the Lord in considering unintentional acts as “puNya” and awarding them (after due punishment for sins), a virtuous birth and opportunity to redeem themselves on account of such unintentional acts. But even here, obviously he doesn’t directly give them moksha, merely a chance to redeem themselves. PP: While it is undeniable that Prapatti is very important and forms as an important ingredient of knowledge filled devotion, one must be aware that Prapatti or surrender to God cannot form an independent means to reach mukti. One of the major pitfalls they faced is in the wrong understanding of the verse in Gita, "sarvadharmān parityajya māmekam śaraṇam vraja | aham tvā sarvapapebhyo mokṣayiśyāmi ma śuca ||" - Gītā 18-66 (explanation of the sloka from a dvaitin viewpoint follows) SD: One of the major pitfalls the author encounters is his abysmal knowledge of bhakti yOga and prapatti in vishishtadvaita. I will not elaborate on this as it is the “charama slOka” and will take many pages. There are many works on the subject. Prapatti is a separate path described by “nyAsa vidya” and a “shadAnga yOga” by the pAncarAtra and other smritis. One clear pramANA showing bhakti and prapatti as two distinct jnAna-viSeshana upAyAs was already quoted:

bhaktyA paramayA vA-pi prapattyA vA mahAmathe prApyoham na anyathA prApyO mama kainkarya lipsubhihi"(~ Ahirbudhnya Samhita, pAncharAtra Agama) The author’s understanding is completely wrong and dvaitins cannot begin to understand the meanings of “sarva dharmAn…”. These are rahasyas. No more on the subject. He can refer to nikshEpa raksha of srI vedAnta desikan for a rudimentary understanding. PP: (Refuting the concept of “AvEsha”) "pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidam pūrṇātpurṇamudacyate | pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate ||" "Lord's Mula rupa is infinite and complete. Lord's incarnation is infinite and complete. It has to be told that the infinite and complete incarnation springs from the Mularupa. Even though the complete and infinite form comes out of the Mularupa, the Mularupa remains as infinite and complete (without any diminution." SD:Almost correct, but still wrong, since “almost” is never enough. When the shAstra talks of 5 avatArAs (Agama pramANAs quoted earlier), why is your interpretation only referring to mUla rUpa and avatArAs as two sets of forms? Om pUrNamidam pUrNamadah pUrNAth pUrNa mudachyathe| pUrNamevAvas’ishyathe||

pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya

Meaning: ParavAsudeva is complete. The antaryAmin is also complete like him. The vyUha that arises from the complete paravAsudeva is also complete and manifests as Aniruddha, etc. From the complete vyUha, the complete vibhava arises and is taken as the locus for the complete archa avatAra which stands as the sole shelter for the devoted. This was explained earlier. Anyway, no-one says the AvEsha avatAra is a “partial avatAra”. Rather, it is a form of vibhava, where the infinite and complete Lord enters into a jIva, and performs extraordinary acts through the jIvA by either providing his power to jIvA(like Arjuna’s archery prowess) or by acting directly through the jIvA (balarAma). He remains full, but as this is nothing but a sort of “possession” of the baddha jIvAs like arjuna, vyAsa, etc they should not be worshipped on the level of rAma, krishNa, etc. Only balarAma, who is a nitya sUri, can be worshipped. The AvEsha in Arjuna, vyAsa, etc is quite complete and worshippable. But Arjuna, vyAsa are not the lord and should not be worshipped as such. The pramANa was quoted earlier and is reproduced again. Quoting the Lord from the Vishvaksena Samhita of the pAncarAtra Agama. anukAlaM mumukShUNAmanupAsyA visheShataH | anarchyAnapi vakShyAmi prAdurbhAvAn yathAkramam || chaturmukhastu bhagavAn sRRiShTikArye niyojitaH| sha~NkarAkhyo mahAn rudraH

saMhAre viniyojitaH||mohanArthe tathA buddhaH vyAsashchaiva mahAnRRiShiH| vedAnAM vyasane tatra devena viniyojitaH||arjuno dhanvinAM shreShTho jAmadagnyo mahAnRRiShiH|vasUnAM pAvakashchApi vitteshashcha tathaiva cha ||yadyadvibhUtimatsarvaM shrImadUrjitameva vA| tattadevAvagachCha tvaM mama tejo.aMshasambhavam|| yadyadvibhUtimatsarvaM shriyA juShTaM visheShataH| rAgadveShavihInaM tu svato balavadulbaNam || tattadaMshaM vijAnIyAt mama kAryArthamAdarAt | evamAdyAstu senesha ! prAdurbhAvairadhiShThitAH || jIvAtmAnassarva ete nopAsyAste mumukShubhiH| AviShTamAtrAste sarve kAryArthamamitadyute|| anarchyAH sarva evaite viruddhatvAnmahAmune | ahaMkRRitiyutAshchaite jIvamishrA hyadhiShThitAH||prAdurbhAvAstu mukhyA ye madaMshatvAdvisheShataH|ajahatsvasvabhAvA hi divyAH prAkRRitavigrahAH||dItAddIpa ivotpannA jagato rakShaNAya te|archyA eva hi senesha saMsRRityuttaraNAya vai|| (~vishvaksena samhita, quoted by srI pillai lOkAchArya) As the Lord said to the attentive Vishvakesena;— “Those who have been entrusted with some cosmic authority should not be worshipped by those desirous of Liberation. I shall specifically mention those partial manifestations (pradurbhavan). The four-faced Brahma was entrusted with the work of projecting the universe into being (srishthi) and the great God Shankara with the work of withdrawal of the universe (samhara). The function of Buddha was to delude and Vyasa was appointed to compile the Vedas. Arjuna was the greatest of archers and Parasurama (Jamadagni) of powerful beings. Agni is the foremost of the Vasus and Vittesha (Kubera) [of the Eight directional lords]. 38 – 39. O Senesha! Whoever is possessed of sovereignty and harmony, prosperity and is agreeable, and devoid of attachment and hatred and of itself influential and exceptionally endowed [for good], is to be known as a portion of Myself, manifested for the purpose of fulfilling My objectives. All of them are governed by Divine decree, they are individual jivas and should not be worshipped by those desirous of Liberation. They are merely entered into O Limitlessly glorious one! By my spirit on purpose and they are all unworthy of worship because they indeed partake of the nature of jivas and are possessed of egotism.Those manifestations who, on account of being largely parts of My spirit are important, who have not given up their own true essence and who are Divine and have non-material bodies, who have arisen like one light from another for the protection of the world; those O Sensesha, are indeed worthy of worship in order to cross the ocean of samsara.” (~vishvaksEna samhita, pAncharAtra Agama) Note that vyAsa and Buddha are included with Brahma, Rudra, Arjuna, etc and the Lord clarifies that they are jIvAs and are not to be worshipped. PP: Nimitta kāraṇa is efficient cause like the pot-maker in case of a pot. Upādāna kāraṇa is material cause like the mud in case of a pot. They are swept by the premonition that just like the dependence of pot-maker on mud for making pot, the Lord will have to be dependent on some other matter for making the universe and so that will attribute flaw to the Lord. SD: No premonitions. We are not discussing Final Destination movies here!

upAdana kAraNatva is admitted not because of “premonition”, but because shAstra declares it, considering everything is his body. The Lord who is the antaryAmin of the subtle state, becomes the Lord who is the antaryAmin of the gross state. Thus, there is a change of state without affecting the Lord (ie, he remains avikAra) and as everything is the body of the Lord, he becomes the material cause. PP: There is no need for such premonition. It is said in Bhagavata "dravyam karma cha kālaśca svabhāvo jīva eva ca yadanugrahataḥ santi na santi yadupekṣayā" - Bhāgavata - 2-10-12 "The matter, the action, the time, the svabhāva exist due to His grace and cease to exist if the Lord is indifferent to them.: SD: Indeed. That sloka only means that everything is the body of the Lord. Just as a body cannot exist without the self abiding in it and sustaining it, nothing can exist without his grace, ie, associating with them as his bodies out of his own free will and making them exist. PP: (Proving existence of hells) The statement from Iśāvasyopaniṣat says "andham tamaḥ pravishanti ye avidyāmupāsate." (Those who upāsana of avidya reach andham tamas (the deepest of the hells) Lord Krishna says in Bhagavadgita āsurīṁ yonimāpannā mūḍhā janmani janmani | māmaprāpyaiva kaunteya tato yāntyadhamāṁ gatim || Gītā - 16-20 "Oh Kaunteya, these wretched people, having been born in demonical wombs, without reaching me, there after obtain deepest of the hells." SD: Who said Vishishtadvaita denies this? srI vedAnta desikan says there may be some jIvAs whose DBJ is so contracted that they are unable to get out of samsAra. The above is fully accepted. Manner of interpretation may differ with respect to reason, logic, though. PP: (Proving jIva bhEda) They will have to effectively reject many Gita statements. trividhā bhavati śraddhā dehināṁ sā svabhāvajā | sāttvikī rājasī caiva tāmasī ceti tāṁ śṛṇu || Gītā - 17-2 Three kinds of faith for the Jivas is mentioned above. By saying svabhāvajā, it has been emphasized that it is inherent.

(Further several references in Gita about sāttvika, rājasika and tāmasika behaviors, outlooks, etc. are provided, which is skipped for brevity) SD: What a misunderstanding of the word “svabhAva”! It does not refer to essential nature here, ie, the svarUpa of the jIva. It only refers to ruchi-s or taste/inclinations of different jIvAs brought about by vAsaNas and karmas. “svabhAva” here means “sva-asAdhAraNa-bhAva” . Here, the word “bhAva” is “dharmaviSeshapara:” – one’s owncondition of being characterized by apeculiar quality (dharma) and hence is intended to convey the meaning of “ruchi”. So, “svabhAva” means one’s own unique and ancient condition of being characterized by unique “ruchi-s”. The habitual tendencies (vAsanAs)are different for different jIvAs, carried over from a previous birth and thus result in the jIva being characterized by different ruchi-s. They differ from jIva to jIva and are unique to each jIva (hence, “svabhAva”). “Shraddha” is the unique predilection or state caused by theseruchi-s. These vAsanAs and ruchi-sare not part of the jIvA’s nature, but accrued over births and they are responsible for the jIvAs’ predilection towards sAttva, rajas or tamas. ShrI rAmAnuja makes it clear in his bhAshya – “bhAva:, prAcIna vAsaNA nimitta: tatruchiviShesha:yatra ruchi: tatra shraddhA jAyatE”. ShrI vedAnta desikan, in his tAtparya chandrika, thus provides the explanation given above and declares that though the word “svabhAva” can have different meanings, shrI rAmAnuja ascertains that it is intended to convey “ruchi” alone here, which is unique for each jIva. The gita slokas quoted only talk about samsAra bhEda. An additional proof that the word “svabhAva” is used to refer to a condition of being characterized by guNA(s) is in the vishvaksEna Samhita as follows: “yathA mayA jagad-vyAptaM svarUpEna svabhAvataH; tathA vyAptaM idaM sarvaM niyantrI ca tathA ISvarI tathA bhUmisca nIlA ca seshabhUtE matE mama svarUpastu na tayoH guNato vyaptiriSyatE” ~ vishvaksena samhita Where it is said that Lakshmi pervades by her svarUpa and her “svabhAva” which is her condition of being characterized by dharma-bhUta-jnAna, in order to be with the Lord wherever he is. But other consorts (bhU and nIla) only pervade by their guNa (dharma-bhUta-jnAna) and not by“svarUpa”everywhere. Note that “svabhAva” (for lakshmi) is replaced interchangeably with “guNa” (for bhU and nIla) in that slOka. The pervasion of svabhAva/guNa is nothing but DBJ. As DBJ is again nothing but an attribute characterizing the substance, this shows “svabhAva” is a general term that refers to the condition of being characterized by attribute(s). As to how Lakshmi pervades by her “svarUpa” – no, her essential nature is not vibhU and that is not implied here. This slOka was explained in detail in anearlier section. Here, it is enough to understand what “svabhAva” means.

No need for this pramANa though. Even if “svabhAva” is used to mean “inherent nature” in some places (in fact, shrI engalazhwAn also uses it as such in his bhAshya), it doesn’t apply to the context in the Gita slOka. Mere etymology as explained by AchAryAs is enough to establish “svabhAva” in the Gita slOka does not mean inherent nature in that context. Inherent jIva bhEda is wrong and is contrary to shAstra. In the vishNu purANa, it is said: pumAn -na devo na naro na pashur -na pAdapah; sharIrAkrti bhedaas tu bhUpaite karmayonayah (~ vishNu purANa 2.13.98) This slOka says that all jIva bhEda is due to the different bodies assumed by different jIvAs on the basis of karma. The jIva by nature is not a man, deva, animal, etc. If it be contended further that there is some “inherent” gender or tAmasik/rAjasik/sAttvik bhEdas, that is also dispelled by the vishNu purANA which states that seshatva (jnAna svarUpa) alone is the nature of the jIvA (identical for all jIvAs): “prAyaSchittAnyaSEShAni tapah karmAtmakAni vai| yAni tEShAmaSEShANAm kriShNAnusmaraNam param ||” (VishNu purANa 2.6.39). In the context of prAyaschitta for sins, the purANA explains that the most effective prAyaschitta, for any type of sin, and that which could even lead to moksha upon proper repentence, is the contemplation on SrI krishNa, with rememberance of the (sinner’s) seshatva to him. This indicates that the essential nature of the Atma is seshatva to the Lord. SrI Engalazhwan comments on it as “AtmadAsyam harEssvAmyam svabhAvam cha sadAsmara”and explains “anusmaraNaM” as ““anurheenArthe, svasya SEShatva anusandhAna pUrvakam smaraNam” nAyam dEva na martyO vA na tiryak sthAvarOpi vA / j~nAnAnandamayastvAtmA shEShO hi paramAtmanah// ~ (MahAbhArata, AshvamEdhika 43-13) The self is neither god nor man, neither beast nor tree. Its essential nature is knowledge and bliss and it is entirely dependent on the Supreme Being and exists solely for His purposes (shESha). The vishNu purANa (2.14.32) also says that the individual self attains the appearance of difference, just as the wind, blown through the various perforations of a flute, though the same, is transformed into various musical notes as the “ShaDja” “riShaBa”, etc. The idea is that all jIvAs are identical in nature and differences of deva, manuShya, etc are due to karma. Note that the above vishNu purANa verses do not refer to paramAtma and occur in the section on jIvAtma. And of course, the harivamSha pramANa, the words of the shiva-jvAra to shrI krishNa, which was quoted earlier also illustrates the essential nature of a jIva is “seshatva”:

AhamasurakulapramAthinATripurahareNahareNanirmitaH|raNashirasivinirjitastvayAprabhurasi deva tavAsmiki~NkaraH || Meaning: I was created by Haran, the destroyer of TripurA. Now I have been conquered by you. You, DevA, are now my master and I am your servant! These pramANAs are not even needed. Merely by proving every jIva is a sharIra of Brahman, the seshatva of all jIvAs and hence their identical natures, is established. PP :They reject tāratamya both in saMsāra and mukti. There is a strange thing here. There are explicit statements in śruti that emphasize tāratamya in mukti. First they claim that those statements pertain to saMsāra. That means they are accepting tāratamya in saMsāra. Further it has been shown in this article that there are clear terms that indicate that these tāratamya statements refer to mukti. If there is tāratamya in mukti itself, then by kaimutya nyāya (what to speak of) there is tāratamya in saMsāra. SD: Those tAratamya statements do not refer to the state of moksha. Nobody rejects tAratamya in samsAra. Where did you get that? There is tAratamya in samsAra, but as these are due to differences in DBJ on account of karma-vAsaNaruchi, etc., there is no tAratamya in moksha. This has been explained earlier. PP: (Proving viSesa) In case of cetana, everything that is inherent of cetana is nondifferent from cetana as that cetana is "acchedya(Note the Gīta verse)" and the qualities are all "yāvaddravyabhāvi"(lasts as long as the object lasts) only, otherwise, one will be forced to attribute vikāra for cetana. It is quite well-known that during saMsāra avastha, the abhivyakti will not be there. So, for cetanas, the qualities will be non-different from the cetana. That is why for Brahman, one may say "Brahman is jnāna and Ananda" or "Brahman has jnāna and Ananda". Both are correct SD: An attribute is different to and inseparably associated with a substance. This has been proven. Brahman has jnAnAnanda svarUpa and has jnAna (DBJ) and Ananda as attributes. As he is “jnAnAnandasvarUpi” (knowledge-bliss by nature) and “jnAnAnAndAshraya” (jnAna and Ananda as attributes), he is said to be jnAna and Ananda, and also said to possess jnAna and Ananda. It does not mean attributes are identical to svarUpa. The case of vikAra is explained as follows: 1) Prakrti undergoes vikAra both in svarUpa and svabhAva (here, by “svabhAva”, the peculiar characteristics/attributes are meant, it doesn’t always refer to essential nature) 2) jIva undergoes vikAra in svabhAva (contraction and expansion of DBJ) but not svarUpa 3) Brahman undergoes no changes in svarUpa and svabhAva cEtana is only mentioned as “acchedya” in Gita 2.24 in the context of it being indestructible. It cannot be cleft (acchedya), burned (adAhyaH) or dissolved (aklEdyaH), etc. How is this even relevant to the discussion, and how is the self being indestructible imply that attributes are identical to the substance? Ludicrous.

When we say “kalyANa guNAs of Brahman are different states of his DBJ”, it only means Brahman perceives by its DBJ and exhibits different guNAs like mercy, courage etc. As these guNAs are equally blemishless and blissful, different states of exhibiting or hiding these guNAs is not “vikAra”. When it is said Brahman is “avikAra”, it is only meant he is ever blemishless and full of auspicious qualities wherever he is. Brahman is jnAnAnadamaya svarUpa and also has jnAna and Ananda as his attributes. svarUpa jnAna is of the form of seshitva/ownership and svabhAva jnAna is nothing but his DBJ. Anything agreeable is Ananda and as both his svarUpa and svabhAva are agreeable, he is both Ananda svarUpi and AnandAshraya.That is why shAstra says “Brahman is jnAnAnandamaya” and “Brahman has jnAna and Ananda”. “Qualities last as long as the object lasts” – says the author. This is not exactly true. Rather, rephrase it thus – “The qualities that are inseparably associated with the object (and hence different) remain in such a relationship as long as the conditions for inseparability remain”. Thus, a blue pot is no longer blue when it is painted red. Blue is seen in other objects; it has a separate existence from the pot. Being inseparableto the pot, it is different. Certain conditions determine how long the inseparability and hence the association lasts. In the case of the cEtana, it is never the case that “qualities of the cEtana last as long as the object last”. For karmas, the body, vAsaNas-ruchi, etc are all attributes of the cEtana in samsAra that are eventually lost, and do not last as long as the cEtana last. DBJ is an attribute of the cEtana that is not lost ever because there is no extraneous factor that can destroy the knowing ability of a knower (other than the Lord who clearly won’t do it). Thus, there is vikAra in the attributes of a cEtana (svabhAva), but it remains avikAra in svarUpa. Regarding the cEtana now – when we say “AtmA”, we mean the substance (svarUpa-jnAna) characterized by its essential attribute of DBJ. The DBJ is an essential attribute of the AtmA (the substance of the AtmA) in that it is a svarUpa nirUpaka dharma and hence included in the definition of the term. The idea is that a cEtana can know/perceive and hence necessarily possesses DBJ. This DBJ is inseparably associated with the svarUpa, has a distinct function as compared to svarUpa jnAna, is an attributeand is hence different to svarUpa jnAna. Since there are no “extraneous conditions” that can ever cause a destruction of the knowing ability of the knower (as clarified by the Upanishad)and since all sentient entities must have the essential attribute of DBJ, this DBJ is always inseparably associated with the jIva svarUpa and hence lasts as long as the Atma exists. Though there is no vikAra in Atma svarUpa, the shAstra does not deny vikAra for the attributes of the cEtana. Thus, Vishishtadvaita only accepts that jIva svarUpa is “avikAra”, not its’ attributes. For the DBJ of the cEtana comes into contact with vAsaNas and ruchi and contracts or expands based on karmas. Since jIvAs are identical in svarUpa (seshatva), jIva bhEda necessarily has to come from the changes happening to the attributes of the jIva, and that alone explains the effect karma has on the behaviors of the jIvAs.

It is only Brahman that is “avikAra” in both svarUpa and DBJ – he is “akhilahEya pratyanika samastha kalyANa guNAtmaka”, “apahatapApma”, etc everywhere. neha nAnAsti kincana emphasises that he undergoes no changes despite his antaryAmitvam in diverse entities, and even if prakrti that is his body undergoes “nAsha” he remains unaffected. PP: (Proof for vAyu jIvOttama) devāsurā ha vai yatra saṁyetira ubhaye prājāpatyāḥ taddha devā udgīthamājahruranenainānabhibhaviṣyāma iti || Chāndogya 1-2-1 te ha nāsikyaṁ prāṇamudgīthamupāsāṁcakrire tam hāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhustasmāttenobhayaṁ jighrati surabhi ca durgandhi ca pāpmanā hyeṣa viddhaḥ || Chāndogya 1-2-2 atha ha vācamudgīthamupāsāṁcakrire tām hāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhuḥ | tasmāttayobhayaṁ vadati satyaṁ cānṛtaṁ ca pāpmanā hyeṣā viddhā ||- Chāndogya - 1-2-3 atha ha cakśurudgīthamupāsāṁcakrire taddhāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhustasmāttenobhayaṁ paśyati darśanīyaṁ cādarśanīyaṁ ca pāpmanā hyetadviddham || - Chāndogya - 1-2-4 atha ha śrotramudgīthamupāsāṁcakrire taddhāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhustasmāttenobhayam śṛṇoti śravaṇīyaṁ cāśravaṇīyaṁ ca pāpmanā hyetadviddham || - Chāndogya - 1-2-5 atha ha mana udgīthamupāsāṁcakrire taddhāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhustasmāttenobhayam saṁkalpate saṁkalpanīyaṁ cāsaṁkalpanīyaṁ ca pāpmanā hyetadviddham || - Chāndogya - 1-2-6 atha ha ya evāyaṁ mukhyaḥ prāṇastamudgīthamupāsāṁcakrire tam vidadhvaṁsuryathāśmānamākhaṇamṛtvā vidhvaMsetaivam || - Chāndogya - 1-2-7

hāsurā

ṛtvā

yathāśmānamākhaṇamṛtvā vidhvaMsata evam haiva sa vidhvaMsate ya evaṁvidi pāpaṁ kāmayate yaścainamabhidāsati sa eṣo'śmākhaṇaḥ || - Chāndogya - 1-2-8 naivaitena surabhi na durgandhi vijānātyapahatapāpmā hyeṣa tena yadaśnāti yatpibati tenetarānprāṇānavati etamu evāntato'vittvotkramati vyādadātyevāntata iti || - Chāndogya - 1-2-9 (When devas and asuras, children of Kashyapa Prajapati, set out for war, devas thought that from God's grace, they can conquer asuras and began worshipping Udgitha named Lord to fulfill their wish. First they worshipped Udgitha in Nāsikya vāyu. Knowing this, the asuras infested Nāsikya prāṇa with sins. Hence the Jivas smell both fragrance and foul smell. Then they meditated upon Udgitha in vāk (Agni is abhimāni for vāk). The asuras infested vāk (speech) with evil/sin. Hence one speaks both truth and falsehood. Then same happened with eyes (Sun god). They infested eyes too. Hence one sees seeable(proper) and unseeable(improper). Then same thing happened with ears(Abhimāni Chandra). Hence we hear both good and evil. Same thing happened with mind(Rudra abhimāni), Ahankāra(śeṣa

abhimāni) and Chitta (Garuḍa abhimāni). Hence we think of good and evil. Then the devas meditated Udgitha in Mukhyaprāṣa. When the asuras tried to attack, afflict and infest Mukhyaprāṇa, they themselves got afflicted and infested like the mud balls hitting the strong stone get powdered. If any one does this kind of Upāsana of "Akhaṇāśma", the evil forces trying to attack such a person will also get destroyed. The worshipper of Mukhyaprāṇa and the Almighty God in Him, will have the good like fragrance only, but not evils like foul smell. Mukhyaprāṇa protects other gods also thru what ever the person eats and drinks. The devotee realizes that Vishnu is all Supreme and gets liberated.) The extolling of Mukhyaprāṇa continues. Again much further down it is said yo ha vai jyeṣṭhaṁ ca śreṣṭhaṁ ca veda jyeṣṭhaśca ha vai śreṣṭhaśca bhavati prāṇo vāva jyeṣṭhaśca śreṣṭhaśca || Chāndogya - 5-1-1 (one who realizes that Mukhyaprāṇa is jyeṣṭha ans śreṣṭha among all the gods, will get liberated and gets jyeṣṭhatva and shreṣṭhatva among his peers.) Similar glorification can be seen in other upaniṣads as well. Even the small Upanishat like Iśāvasyopaniṣat extolls Mukhyaprāṇa in the names like "Mātariśvā" , "Vāyu", "Anila", "Amṛta". SD: None of these statements prove vAyu jIvOttama. Neither does the iShavasya Upanishad glorify vAyu. The fact is, vAyu is a minor deity, with the sole glory of having a mahAbhAgavata/paramAchArya (hanumAn) as his son and any references to the glory of praNa is only in relation to the *function* of praNa, since praNa is the most vital function to sustain the body, such glorification existing forthe purpose of upAsaNa. This does not refer to the presiding deity of praNa. Furthermore, the presiding deity of prANa is clearly mentioned to be Garuda in the sAtvata and iShvara samhitas of the pAncharAtra Agama, so it is not clear how the wind god vAyu has been equated to mukhyaprANa devata. If it be argued that both prANa and vAyu are airs, then we have shAstra that only says garuDa is the devata for prANAs and the two types of airs are different in functions, thus having 2 different devatas respectively. Injunctions of “prANOpAsaNa” as seen in the Chandogya Upanishad only imply a glorification of prANa, the vital airfor the purpose of upAsaNa. For it is known that as in all other upAsaNas, here too, it is Brahman, who has praNa as his body and is the innerself of praNa,whois to be attained through such meditation. The dhriShti is on the actual vital airs here and it is paramAtma, who has these vital airs as his sharIra, and is their indweller, who is to be understood through such meditation. There is no mention of “sesha abhimAni”, “rudra abhimAni”, “garuda abhimAni” in the chAndogya mantrAs. It is not a rule that the shAstrAs need to refer to devatAs when talking about organs when the context is upAsaNa, whether or not these devatAs preside over those organs. “praNa” is glorified for its’ functions and for its’ contemplation; this does not make any reference to the deity of prANa.

Lastly, even if it be argued that it refers to actual deities using the oft quoted rule of “terms refer to the element as well as abhimAni devata”, then it only refers to Garuda, who is the presiding deity of prANa, apAna, etc according to the pAncharAtra. Also, the shAstra uses terms like “vAyu”, “mAtarishvA” etc to denote the jIva transmigrating in samsAra. The idea is that just as wind never stays still and moves from place to place, similarly the baddha jIva never stays permanently in one body and transmigrates. Hence, the baddhas are often termed as “vAyu" or “matarishvA” and thesehave been misunderstood by dvaitins to denote vAyu devata in places. Objects like the jIva or the mind can be termed as “prajApati”, “rudra”, “matarishvA” etc due to their etymological meaning and appropriateness. The shAstra has thus used these terms to denote these entities. Some parts of shAstra are also metaphorical and terms like “devas” and “asurAs” don’t imply the literal beings everywhere. Firstly, let us look at the chAndogya mantras.Here is the proper explanation: devāsurā ha vai yatra saṁyetira ubhaye prājāpatyāḥ taddha devā udgīthamājahruranenainānabhibhaviṣyāma iti || Chāndogya 1-2-1 Meaning: When the devas and asurAs, both being the children of prajApati, waged a war with each other, then, the gods took to udgitha with the idea – “By this, we will conquer these asurAs”. A story is introduced for prescribing the view of mukhyaprANa or the vital airs in “OmkAra” (mukhya prANa dhrishti). The idea is that the gods thought of conquering the asurAs through meditation upon Omkara – a part of Udgitha. Here, the interpretation of Shri Shankara is accepted to an extent by the Vishishtadvaita AchAryAs in that the term “devas” refer to those whose functions of IndrIyas are guided by the shAstra. In general, those who follow the shAstra are devas and those who are functioning according to their will, indulging in senses, are the asurAs. This is going on from beginningless time. The story is thus introduced for causing discrimination between dharma and adharma. Tweaking that interpretation slightly, “prajApati” refers to “karmajnAnadhikrita: purusha:”, ie, to that purusha, the functions of indrIyAs that are guided by the shAstras and those that are guided by their own nature are like children who are mutually opposed. The term “deva” is often used in the shAstra for denoting mind, indrIyAs etc which illumine objects. “prajApati” is a term often used to denote the jIvAtma in the metaphors used in the brahmANAs as well. Thus, these terms are metaphors based on context of upAsaNa as opposed to taking them literally as devas and asurAs. te ha nāsikyaṁ prāṇamudgīthamupāsāṁcakriretam hāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhustasmāttenobhayaṁ jighratisurabhi ca durgandhi ca pāpmanā hyeṣa viddhaḥ || Chāndogya 1-2-2

Meaning: They meditated upon udgitha as the sense organ (of smell), the nose. The asurAs struck with sin that organ of smell. Therefore, with that, one smells both fragrant and foul smell. It was verily struck by sin. The gods meditated on Udgitha having the form of the sense organ of smell. The asurAs attack the organ of smell with sin. What does this statement mean? It means that they made this sense organ function in such a way that will be the cause of sin. Everywhere, “gods” refer to those functions of the indrIyAs that are guided by the shAstras and “asurAs” refer to those wayward functions which transgress shAstras. Both belong to the puruSha. By saying “gods meditate on Udgitha”, it only means those functions were engaged in Udgitha. Those functions which are not controlled by the puruSha in such a manner serve to cause sin. Both opposing tendencies are present in a baddha jIva. atha ha vācamudgīthamupāsāṁcakrire tām hāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhuḥ | tasmāttayobhayaṁ vadati satyaṁ cānṛtaṁ ca pāpmanā hyeṣā viddhā ||- Chāndogya - 1-2-3 Meaning: They then meditated upon Udgitha as “vAk” or the organ of speech. The asurAs afflicted it with sin. Therefore with that organ of speech, one speaks truth and untruth. This is struck by sin. Similar meanings as above. atha ha cakśurudgīthamupāsāṁcakrire taddhāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhustasmāttenobhayaṁ paśyati darśanīyaṁ cādarśanīyaṁ ca pāpmanā hyetadviddham || - Chāndogya - 1-2-4 Meaning: Thereupon they meditated upon Udgitha as the eye. Even that the asurAs struck with sin. Therefore with that one sees things both beautiful and ugly. This is verily afflicted with sin. atha ha śrotramudgīthamupāsāṁcakrire taddhāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhustasmāttenobhayam śṛṇoti śravaṇīyaṁ cāśravaṇīyaṁ ca pāpmanā hyetadviddham || - Chāndogya - 1-2-5 Meaning: Then they meditated upon Udgitha as the ear. That also the asurAs afflicted with sin. Therefore, with that, one hears both what should be heard and what should not be heard. This was verily afflicted by sin. atha ha mana udgīthamupāsāṁcakrire taddhāsurāḥ pāpmanā vividhustasmāttenobhayam saṁkalpate saṁkalpanīyaṁ cāsaṁkalpanīyaṁ ca pāpmanā hyetadviddham || - Chāndogya - 1-2-6 Meaning: Then they meditated upon Udgitha as the mind. That also the asurAs afflicted with sin. So with that, one thinks of good and evil. That is also verily afflicted with sin. This exposition is introduced in shruti for deciding that the “mukhyaprANa” or vital airs should be the object of meditation. This is meant for making one realize the purity or viShuddhatva of mukhyaprANa.

Note that by this, the deity vAyu is not being referred to. Rather, it is verily the vital airs, which are meditated upon (as the body of Brahman) in this mode of upAsaNa. To extol this meditation, the fact of the vital airs being unaffected by the sins is mentioned. Here, the contemplation is on vital airs alone. So, introducing a devata tAratmya is not the focus of this meditation. And as mentioned earlier, even if you want to take it as a deity, it only refers to garuDa by that logic. atha ha ya evāyaṁ mukhyaḥ prāṇastamudgīthamupāsāṁcakrire tam vidadhvaṁsuryathāśmānamākhaṇamṛtvā vidhvaMsetaivam || - Chāndogya - 1-2-7

hāsurā

ṛtvā

Meaning: Then they meditated upon (a part of) Udgitha as the vital air. Reaching that vital air, the asurAs themselves were destroyed even as a lump of mud hittng against a rock gets destroyed. The idea is that they meditated upon “OmkAra”, a part of Udgitha bhakti as mukhyaprANa. The asurAs themselves were destroyed when they tried to afflict that mukhyaprANa with sin. It does not refer to any devatAs, but only extols the merits of meditating on Udgitha with the view of the vital air. It is a standard procedure of illustrating the advantages of such contemplation seen in many upAsaNas – as the vital air is free of the influence of the functions of the indrIyAs that transgress shAstras, it is to be viewed in Udgitha for contemplation. yathāśmānamākhaṇamṛtvā vidhvaMsata evam haiva sa vidhvaMsate ya evaṁvidi pāpaṁ kāmayate yaścainamabhidāsati sa eṣo'śmākhaṇaḥ || - Chāndogya - 1-2-8 Meaning: Just as a lump of mud hitting against a rock gets destroyed, even so one who thinks of evil to him or injures him who knows thus, gets destroyed. This one (who thinks of evil towards a knower of this), is verily a lump of mud hitting a rock. The fruit of this knowledge is described here. If anyone thinks of evil with respect to a knower of this vidya or if anyone injures such a knower, he will be destined to destruction just like a lump of mud. naivaitena surabhi na durgandhi vijānātyapahatapāpmā hyeṣa tena yadaśnāti yatpibati tenetarānprāṇānavati etamu evāntato'vittvotkramati vyādadātyevāntata iti || - Chāndogya - 1-2-9 Meaning: One will not smell good or foul with this. This is opposed to all evil. Therefore, by what he eats and drinks, he protects other indrIyAs. In the end, not gaining this, they pass out of the body. At the time of death, it makes the mouth wide open. The distinction of prANa from other indrIyAs is pointed out here (note that this does not refer to any deities, merely the organs for the sake of meditation). The mukhyaprANa is opposed to all evil, and thus is not merely self-nourishing, but also nourishes other indrIyAs by what it eats and drinks. Therefore, all other indrIyAs like the organ of smell and others gain their existence by what mukhyaprANa eats and drinks. That is the reason why all these indrIyAs pass out of the body when they do not get food and drink at the time of death of the person – on account of the absence of the food eaten by

mukhyaprANa. “etEna vijAnAti” means that the Purusha understands through this neither fragrance nor foul smell. The reason for this, it is not an “Atmambhari”, filling one’s own self, just like other sense organs. At the time of death, the host of sense organs passes out of the body without gaining their “satta” or existence from mukhyaprANa. Thus, this is a mode of upAsaNa in which the vital air is to be visualized as a part of Omkara and for that purpose, the prANa is glorified and its’ merits are pointed out. It has nothing to do with deities. Coming to the next quoted Chandogya mantra, yo ha vai jyeṣṭhaṁ ca śreṣṭhaṁ ca veda jyeṣṭhaśca ha vai śreṣṭhaśca bhavati prāṇo vāva jyeṣṭhaśca śreṣṭhaśca || Chāndogya - 5-1-1 Meaning: He who knows the eldest and the most celebrated becomes the eldest and most celebrated. Prana or the Vital Air is the eldest and most celebrated. The prANavidya, which is meditation on praNa, the vital air, is being taught here. The whole section refers to the vital air(praNa) and not to the deity vAyu, for meditation on the former alone. In the above mantra, according to the analogy of “tatkratunyAya”, one who meditates upon the vital air which is qualified by the attributes of “jyEshtatva” and “shrEShtatva”, becomes endowed with these qualities. praNa is “jyEshta” as the functions of indrIyAs is only after the commencement of the functioning of the praNa in respect of a puruSha who is in the womb. The functions of indrIyAs are dependent on praNa and thus praNa is “shrEshta”. All these thus refer only to descriptions of the functions of the vital air and not a devata. For instance, in mantras like 5-1-12 where the other indrIyAs say to praNa – “You are the most celebrated among us”, it is only an illustration to highlight the superiority of the vital air which makes it fit for upAsaNa, and is not a literal dialogue between devatAs. Similarly, in mantra 5-2-2 where it is said praNa asked for water as his garment, it only means the upAsaka should meditate on the water he sips as the garment of praNa, as people sip water before and after eating, thus covering praNa with the garment of the form of water. upAsaNa involves direct visualization through contemplation and thus, the descriptions simply hammer home that instruction. A similar mistake is made by dvaitins when they quote the paingi shruti: pranasmetad vashe sarvam pranah paravashe sthitah na parah kinchidashritya vartate paramoyatah This is interpreted wrongly as “Everything is under vAyu’s control and vAyu is under the control of Hari” by the author’s tradition. It is wrong. The correct interpretation is as follows: All the indrIyAs are under the control of the vital air (prANa). In turn, prANa is under the control of the individual self termed as “para”. The individual self is never dependent on anything, even to a small degree, and this has always been the case.

“prANa” refers to the vital air which was described previously as the protector of all indrIyas, denoted by “sarvaM” here. The indrIyAs are all dependent on prANa and cannot function without prANa. Similarly, prANa is dependent on the individual self residing in the body, as it cannot function without the jIva. The individual self however, is not dependent on prANa, or the body or the indrIyas, etc for its’ existence as it can exist without them. This mantra is thus teaching the essential distinction between body and self. The individual self is called “para” as it is superiorto or higher than prakrti. ParamAtma is very rarely referred to as merely “para” in shAstra – it often refers to the self or to other things like desire (seen earlier).Inability to understand this is the root cause of all the vAyu jivOtthama talk. Coming to the isavAsya Upanishad, terms like “mAtarishvA", "vAyu", "anila", "amRta” are explained as follows: 1) In the 4th mantra, after describing the Supreme Brahman, it is said “tasmin apO mAtarishvA dadhAti” – “By it, vAyu bears water”. The following is implied – Air (vAyu) supports clouds, water, stars, others etc through the power of the Supreme Lord, ie, that air is itself supported by the all-supporter. The significance of mentioning mAtarishvA is only to show that the supporter of other celestial objects is itself being supported by the Lord. “apaH” does not merely refer to water, but to planets, stars, etc. Even though Vayu – the air holding and supporting the water, planets, stars, clouds etc., appears to have no support, it is the Lord, who is holding and supporting Vayu – unseen. He is enabling Vayu to hold and support all these entities. That he has the extraordinary powers to hold and support is made clear below – Dyau ssachndrArka nakshthram – kham dis’o bhUrmahodadhih| vAsudevasya veeryeNa vidhrithAni mahAthmanah || (~ Mahabharata) The higher world- the swarga, the space along with the Sun, Moon, stars, the directions, the earth, the great oceans – all these are held and made to stand on by the extra ordinary power of vAsudeva. Ethasya vA aksharasya pras’Asane gArgi| sUryA chandramasau vithhritau thishThathah || (~BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad) O GArgi! At the command of this indestructible (being), sun and moon being upheld stay in their places. 2) In the 17th mantra, where he terms “vAyu”, “amrtaM”, “anilaM” are used, it is said – vAyuranilamamR^itamathedaM bhasmA.ntaM sharIram | Om krato smara kR^itaM smara krato smara kR^itaM smara || 17||

Meaning: The pure jIvAtma is moving about, abodeless and immortal. Now this body is ending in ashes. Om! O, the one of the form of sacrifice, remember that which was done. O, the one of the form of sacrifice, remember that which was done. The pure jIvAtma is described here. “vAyu” refers to the jIva as he will be moving here and there like wind which never stays still according to his DBJ and karma. “AnilaM” – “nilayanarahithatvath” – He is without any resting place, ie, he is not residing in any material body permanently, as he is transmigrating ceaselessly. “amrtaM” – He is immortal though the series of bodies are destroyed. “athEdaM” – the term “atha” refers to the introduction of a different topic – “prakrtAth arthAntharavivakshaya aNNAthashabda” – or, “atha” may refer to the state of the Atman after passing out of the body or it may signify the totality of all jIvAs that are under the sway of karma. The body which is different from the jIvAtma ends in ashes. This is suggestive of all ways of disposal of the dead body. “Kratu” signifies parabrahman in an indicatory sense as he is the object of meditation. “krtaM smara” – Remember what little good is done by me. It can also mean – “You alone complete the remaining part also” considering all the good done to me so far. Terms like “vAyu”, “mAtarishvA” etc are common nouns that can be applied to different entities based on context. In this particular context, it does not denote the vAyu devata, but the jIvAtma only. In fact, there are several places in the samhitas and brahmaNas where “vAyu” refers to the mind on account of it moving from one thought to another ceaselessly. Similarly, the jIva who transmigrates ceaselessly like wind which is never still is also called “matarishvA”, “vAyu”, “vAtaH”, etc in many places. Keshi sUkta also refers to bhagavAN as “vAyu”. Therefore, one cannot jump into conclusions that it refers to the devata without looking at the context. Now, regarding the keshI sUkta, one can find the meanings on the nArAyaNastra blog. “keshI” refers to bhagavAn who is the antaryAmin of ka (Brahma) and Isa (Shiva).There is no reference to vAyu. To this, the opponent may quote the following padma purANa samvAda between shiva and pArvati, which extols the deity “vAyu” for drinking the hAla-hAla viShaM and refers to him as “kEshi” as follows: mahAviShaM mahAghoraM saMvartAgnisamaprabham |dRRiShTvA pradudruvuH sarve bhayArtA devamAnatAH | tatastadvidrutAndRRiShTvA brahmA lokapitAmahaH | jagAda vAyuM tarasA harerAj~nApuraHsaram | niHsheShaM kuru vAyo tvaM lokasaMhArakaM viSham | tvadanyo nAsti mad grastuM sarvajIvahitaM kuru | iti dhAturvachaH shrutvA dashapramatirabravIt | bhakShayAmi harerAj~nAM puraskRRitya vidhervachaH | harernAmochchAraNena tadbhaktyA cha visheShataH | sarvavyAdhiviShaM ghoraM pAtre nyasya kare dadhat | bindumAtraM pRRithaggRRihya tadviShaM mardayaMstataH | parIkShaNArthaM chAnyeShAM devAdInAM cha pArvati | mama haste dadau ki~nchidbhakShasveti mArutaH | iti nAmamAtreNa sahitaM mantrAnugrahamAdishan | tadvishaprAshanAdeva mama dAhobhyavardhata | jihvAgradhAraNAdeva mama prANA vinirgatAH | kRRipayA pavamAnasya tathA nAmatrayeNa cha | achyutAnantagovindanAmamAhAtmyataH shubhe | jIvitosmi tadA kAle viShNornAmatrayAdaho |

pashchAttu tadviShaM sarvamekIkRRitya sa pAtrake | anAyAsAtpapau vAyuH sarveShAM rakShaNAya cha | hareshcha prItaye devi brahmaNo vachanAttathA | RRichobruvaMshcha devasya keshIti brahmavAdinaH | itthaM vAyormahattvaM hi viShNubhaktasya pArvati | iti | (~ Padma Purana) These slOkas in a nutshell, say that bhagavAn summoned the deity known as “vAyu”, “mAruta” and “pavamAna”, and by his orders, this deity drank the bulk of the poison (giving a portion to shiva) and saved the worlds with ease. This deity however, is not the wind god. It is Garuda, who is called vAyu here. The following are the pramANas: 1) There are five forms of Sri Garutman, according to Sri SAtvata Samhita of pAncarAtra AgamaSatya, SuparNa, Garuda, Tarkshyastu and VihagEshvara, each of whom is the presiding deity for PrANa, apAna, vyAna, udAna and samAna. In that sense, Garuda is termed as “vAyu” and “mAruta” (shrI vedAnta desikan refers to garuDa as “prANApAnAdi bhedAt pratitanu maruta daivataM”). The context is appropriate, as Garuda, who is the presiding deity of prANa that sustains life, saved the lives of all by drinking the poison. 2) Garuda is also called vAyu or mAruta on account of being the vAhana of the Lord, and he moves like wind. The context is also appropriate for this meaning, as the term “harerA~jnA” implies that at the command of the lord, he swiftly obeyed him, this swiftness at executing the command thus implied by the name “vAyu”. Alternatively, he is swift as wind in rescuing the devotees of the Lord, or bringing the Lord to his devotees, which again suits the context. 3) Another meaning is that garuDa is “vAyu” or “marut” as he is always associated with wind, since he generates a great wind by the flapping of his wings. 4) Garuda is called “pavamAna” because he is “vedAtma”, the embodiment of the Veda and thus purifies all. Alternatively, he is an amSha of SankarshaNa, who purifies the mind. He is called “kEshI” because he is “suparNa”, very brilliant and shining, thus he possesses rays of light (kEsha-s). Thus, Garuda is the devata for kEshI sUkta, which describes the Lord. 5) Garuda can drink any posion as he, being the King of Birds, feeds on poisonous snakes. He destroys the poison of samsAra and frees all beings from death, according to shrI vedAnta desikan. It is his prime ability. Besides these, there are sufficient pramANas to prove that this deity is Garuda, as follows: taMdR^iShTvA ghora saN^kAshaM prAdurbhUtaM mahAviSham.h | dhyAtvA nArAyaNaM devaM hR^idayE garuDadhvajaM.h|| ~ Brahma purANa Meaning: Seeing that terrible poison emerging, (Shiva) meditated on nArAyaNa, the effulgent God, Garudadhvaja, residing in the heart.

Note the mention of “garudadhvaja” – The Lord who has Garuda as his banner. This implies that Garuda was instrumental in helping Shiva on behalf of the Lord. yEnajIrNaM ca garuDadhvaja ||

garaLaMkaNThasthaM

ca

kapAlinaH|antarAtma

dhR^itaM

tasyahR^idayE

Meaning: It was only due to kapAlin (Shiva) meditating on the Lord, who is garuDadhvaja, indwelling in the heart, that he was able to digest the terrible poison, right in his neck. Again, “garuDadhvaja” is mentioned. Why else, if not to highlight that he was the one who acted on behalf of the Lord for saving Shiva? His ability to kill and eat poisonous snakes and his ability to destroy the poison of material attachments for the devotees of the Lord thus implies that he was most suited to drinking the poison. Another one:

aprakAshamidaM devi guhyAd guhyataraM padam.h | purAham abdhimathane patagendra viShAvaham.h | avadhyaM garalaM ghoramaJNbhujam amR^itaMyathA || Note “patagendra”. Thus, garuDa is the “vAyu” mentioned in the incident as all logic points to it. Of course, there is yuga bhEda – in some yugAs, shiva meditates on garuDa and nArAyaNa, and drinks all the poison himself (as per the account in the bhAgavataM). In other yugAs, garuDa directly appears to drink the poison. One cannot question as to why garuDa is not directly mentioned. He is called vAyu, mAruta and pavamAna here because the names suit the context. Similarly, the mahAbhArata says “dharma saved Draupadi”, which only means krishNa who is the eternal dharma (means). It doesn’t say krishNa’s name directly because the context supports it (Draupadi performing prapatti and considering the Lord as the means). Another example would be shrI rAma referring to samudra rAja as “mahAdeva”, a name normally referring to shiva. The keshI sUkta is thus a praise of paramAtma with garuDa as the devata. Dual meanings for garuDa and nArAyaNa can be provided. Refer the nArAyaNastra blog. Lastly, yet another slOka from the mahAbhArata is misconstrued by the author’s tradition: Narayanam namaskritya naram caiva narottamam Where “narOttamaM” is wrongly interpreted as vAyu/bhIma. Actually, Nara is an AvEsha avatAra, where the Lord has entered a jIvAtma (Arjuna/Nara). Thus it means “Salutations to nArAyaNa, and the Lord in Nara, who is also the foremost of men” – the salulation is to the Lord dwelling as AvEsha within the jIva Nara, and to the noble jIva that is Nara as well.

Hence, there is no indication of vAyu jIvOttama in shAstra. Sections extolling prANa for the sake of upAsaNa or describing the state of the jIvAtma should be interpreted in the context of the purpose they serve to convey, ie, meditation in the former case and description of the jIva’s helplessness and plea to the Lord in the latter case. PP: Vedavyāsa is indeed the full incarnation of Viṣṇu. Lord Krishna mentioned that in Gita vedāntakṛdvedavideva cāham Here vedānta is Brahmasutras. Lord is composer of Vedanta(Brahmasutras) and known thru vedas only. Lord Vedavyāsa composed Brahmasutras. He is mentioned as Avatāra of Viṣṇu in Bhāgavata also. SD: In that slOka, Lord is saying he is the compiler of the vedas in the same way he says “I am the creator and destroyer of the jagat”. Just as the latter actions are accomplished by the Lord through Brahma and Rudra, the former is accomplished by the Lord through vyAsa. Of course, he is the actual doer, it doesn’t mean the jIva who is veda vyAsa, brahma or rudra is verily him. Quoting the vishvaksEna Samhita of the pAncarAtra again: anukAlaM mumukShUNAmanupAsyA visheShataH | anarchyAnapi vakShyAmi prAdurbhAvAn yathAkramam || chaturmukhastu bhagavAn sRRiShTikArye niyojitaH| sha~NkarAkhyo mahAn rudraH saMhAre viniyojitaH||mohanArthe tathA buddhaH vyAsashchaiva mahAnRRiShiH| vedAnAM vyasane tatra devena viniyojitaH||arjuno dhanvinAM shreShTho jAmadagnyo mahAnRRiShiH|vasUnAM pAvakashchApi vitteshashcha tathaiva cha ||yadyadvibhUtimatsarvaM shrImadUrjitameva vA| tattadevAvagachCha tvaM mama tejo.aMshasambhavam|| yadyadvibhUtimatsarvaM shriyA juShTaM visheShataH| rAgadveShavihInaM tu svato balavadulbaNam || tattadaMshaM vijAnIyAt mama kAryArthamAdarAt | evamAdyAstu senesha ! prAdurbhAvairadhiShThitAH || jIvAtmAnassarva ete nopAsyAste mumukShubhiH| AviShTamAtrAste sarve kAryArthamamitadyute|| anarchyAH sarva evaite viruddhatvAnmahAmune | ahaMkRRitiyutAshchaite jIvamishrA hyadhiShThitAH|| (~vishvaksena samhita, quoted by srI pillai lOkAchArya) As the Lord said to the attentive Vishvakesena;— “Those who have been entrusted with some cosmic authority should not be worshipped by those desirous of Liberation. I shall specifically mention those partial manifestations (pradurbhavan). …..The function of Buddha was to delude and Vyasa was appointed to compile the Vedas. Arjuna was the greatest of archers and Parasurama (Jamadagni) of powerful beings. …….They are merely entered into O Limitlessly glorious one! By my spirit on purpose and they are all unworthy of worship because they indeed partake of the nature of jivas and are possessed of egotism. Of the two types of AvEshAs, vyAsa is svarUpAvEsha where the Lord directly enters into a jIvA and acts through the jIvA. As vyAsa is a baddha jIva, bhagavAn exhibits his omniscience or knowledge of the veda through the svarUpAvEsha of vyAsa. As jIvAs in samsAra cannot be omniscient, the Lord entered the jIva known as veda vyAsa and exhibited the quality of omniscience to compile the vedas. So Lord can be worshipped, vyAsa can be worshipped as a guru, but vyAsa cannot be worshipped as the Lord.

The above Agama statement can be easily reconciled with “vyAsAya vishNu rUpAya” – he has the svarUpAvEsha (vishNu rUpa, where “rUpa” can mean essential nature) in him. BhagavAn is indeed “pUrNaM” inside the jIvA vyAsa, but vyAsa is not the pUrNa bhagavAn. He is a jIva and hence it makes 100% sense to say that the Lord compiled the Vedas through vyAsa. Doesn’t mean he is not to be respected though. PP: (panchabhEda) pratyakṣasiddha and Agamasiddha. No difference can be denied here. This has been discussed in detail inside this article. SD: Indeed. Some things are accepted, but others suggested by the tradition of the author have no pramANa. ~Thus ends the critique of Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri’s “viśiṣṭādvaita viśleṣaṇa vivecanam”~ ~sarvaM srikrishNArpaNamastu~