To: <dvaita-list@dvaita.org> Subject: Nature of Self in Brahma-Mimamsaa - I From: "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r-c-i.

com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:59:58 -0400 Srimad Ananda Theertha in Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya describes adhikari-svaroopa as "Tathaanyo guna-purvakah Bhaktimaan parame vishnu yas-tu adhyayanavaan narah adhamah Shamaadi samyuktaha madhyamaha sam-udaahritaha aabrahma sthambha paryantam asaaram cha anityakam vijnaaya jaata-vairaagyo vishnu paadaika samshrayaha sa uttamo adhikaari syaat sanyasta akhila karmavaan iti" (Further there is also adhikara which is defined on the basis of quality guna-poorvakaha). The person who has devotion to Vishnu, the Highest ( parame) and has the study of veda, adhyayana is adhikaarin of the lowest rank (adhama). THe person who has Devotion to Vishnu ( Vishnu-Bhakti), study of Shastra (adhyayana), engaging the self in understanding Vishnu ( Shama, Dama, etc), is one who is somewhat higher ( madhyama) But one who has realized that of the things beginning with Brahma all the way down to an insect, everything is essenceless ( assarata) and absolutely transcient anityataa) and has the detachment caused by this realization ( vijnaana) and further has only one support namely VIshnu-paada ( vishnu-paadaika samshraya) i.e, Vishnu as He is, is the (uttama) best because he is one who has given up all that he does i.e, has given up doership in the sense that he has realized that Vishnu is the doer of all). Vishnu is the source of all existence ( sarva-sattaa-prada). Adhikaara is only an expression and appreciation of this truth. Further, without Adhikaara this truth can not be understood. There are two aspects of adhikaara : 1. Adhikaara as determined by birth. 2. as determined by quality All that birth indicates is that a person who is mukti-yogya i.e, who deserves moksha is adhikaarin in connection with Brahma-vidya. But Tikacharya draws distinction between mukti-yogyatva and adhikaara. While mukti-yogyatva may or may not lead to

Jigyaasa, adhikaara necessarily makes Brahma-Jigyaasaa indispensable. Mukti-yogyatva is governed by birth and inspite of birth there may not be Brahma-Jigyaasaa. The background that makes Jigyaasaa possible is something more than this. It is in this case determined qualitatively. THe background that is qualitative admits of three stagesadhama, madhyama, and uttama. These are only the distinction of three stages in the scale of adhikaara. This signifies that one who is found in the lower stage today, may be seen to develop the qualities of the next higher stage tomorrow. Vishnu-paadaika samshrayatva signifies the state of being devoted to Vishnu as the very principle of existence as such. With this adhikaarin is prepared to take nothing as being outside or independent of Vishnu. His devotion to VishNu is such that he readily appreciates everything, seeing everything through Vishnu and therefore seeing Vishnu everywhere. Further, everything consists in action. To see Vishnu everywhere is to see that It is the source of all actions. This is akhila-karma-sanyaasa. Sanyaasa is not abandonment of Karma. It is actually having karma at the same time tracing it to its source, Vishnu. Karma seen in this manner is not taken to have been determined by individual efforts. It is not taken to have a necessary relation to a result in which an individual is interested. Nor is it taken to be the work of an individual. It is rather something of which the individual and various other things ( like tools, saamagri) which are supposed to have made it possible are all different aspects. All these things are in fact the attributes of Karma. The following is the distinction between the common idea of karma and Karma in Karma-sanayasa. Commonly Karma is taken to be the effect of the operation

of various things including the individual doer. According to this conception, the things are logically prior to karma and karma is therefore attributed to them. With it various other ideas that are supposed to help karma, are also attributed to the things considered to be prior to karma. But the implications of karma-sanyaasa is totally different. According to this, Karma is prior to things and the things are attributes of karma. It is karma that gives rise to the so-called individual doer. It is Karma which gives rise to the idea of a result. It is Karma that determines the capacities of various things that are supposed to help it. It is thus Karma that is the creator of the individual doer, result and various entities that are supposed to help karma. The common sense karma is the result of several things. But karma of karma-sanyaasa is the source of several things. An appreciation of this truth is necessarily the result of vairaagya and vishnu-bhakti. Vishnu-Bhakti as applied to karma ends in realizing that not only that karma is the maker of all but that Vishnu is the source of Karma. Karma is existence. Vishnu is the principle of all existence. Vishnu is therefore the author of all Karma. Vishnu is sarva-kartaa, all-doer. It is the realization of this truth., viz., the truth of Vishnu as sarva-kartaa that is karma-sanyaasa. Harahi Om Tatsat. ( to be continued...) == To: <dvaita-list@dvaita.org> Subject: Nature of Self in Brahma-Mimamsaa - II From: "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r-c-i.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:04:08 -0400

Adhikaara necessarily leads to Brahma-Jigyaasaa. Adhikaara and Jigyaasaa are intimately related. There is Jigyaasaa just to the extent that there is adhikaara. One may recall Taittareeya upanishat here which lists a table of different levels of Ananda (Yathaartha Jnaana) which is the result of Jigyaasaa which is solely determined by Adhikaara as in .... Te ye shatam manushya gandharvaaNaam anandaaha | Shrotriyasya chaakaamahatasya | .... Shrotreeyasya refers to Brahma-Nishtataa ( which is also termed as Vishnu-Bhakti) And chaakaamahatasya refers to vairaagya. Vairaagya and Vishnu-bhakti as mentioned earlier are components of Adhikaara. Hence as much there is Adhikaara so much is Jigyaasaa, in other words There is Jigyaasaa just to the extent that there is adhikaara. In the light of what was said in the previous email, we can say the following is the process of adhikaara. It is in the form of disposition. This disposition is purely intellectual in character. It helps the understanding and appreciation of the truth that Vishnu is sarva-kartaa. This state of mind is totally different from mere dedication of all karma to Vishnu. If the authorship is owned by the individual, then dedication is false. In fact, dedication in the presence of owning authorship adds another item of authorship namely the authorship of the act of dedication. So, karma-sanyaasa is purely a case of disposition. From this disposition emerges the study of shaastra, and from this results the knowledge of Vishnu, the author of all. This gives a definiteness to Vishnu-bhakti, the starting point of adhikaara and this makes the rest of the process more refined. With the refinement of adhikaara in this manner, the study of shaastra gains more and more comprehensiveness. This is how knowledge grows endlessly. Since terms like "disposition", "Mukti-yogya" have been used here, let us try to understand these terms. Note that unless we understand the 'jiva-svaroopa' , we wont be able to understand what 'kartrtva' means. For this we will go to Tattva-Samkhyaana and Tattva-Viveka of Srimad Acharya and their tiika by Sri Jayatheertha Tiikaacharya. Chetano achetanascheti bhaavascha dvividhaha smrithah - Tattvaviveka Chetayateeti chetanaha | anevamvidho achetanaha | - Tattva viveka teeka

Two types of objects can be distinguished in the world. Some objects are knowing entities. They are called "Chetana". Others are not knowing entities. They are called "achetana". Both are the objects of knowledge. This is why we make an attempt to study them. Chetana : The word chetana is literally applied to one who knows. The knower is chetana. A knower is in a body. Without him there is no body. As the principle of existence of his body he is called a Jiva. Each body has its own Jiva. Bodies are many. Jivas are also many. Each body having a jiva in it is capable of a unique experience. So the experience of each Jiva is unique. A body consists of the organs of action and those of knowledge. Through them a jiva has the experience of the world and is consequently called a knower. A knower has his experience through his Sakshii. He perceives the bodily functions through Sakshii and has the consequent enjoyment. He is evident as 'I'. Knowing is his nature. He is awake under all conditions, though the particular aspects of the body may or may not function ( For Ex: in dreamless deep sleep called sushupti). This points to the fact that he is different from body. By body in this connection is meant gross body. There are 3 kinds of body svaroopa, linga and sthula. Sthula is gross - it has birth and death. Linga is subtle. It is anaadi and it subsists till the jiva is liberated. These two bodies are different from Jiva. Svaroopa forms the very nature of the Jiva and it is immortal. The experience of pleasure or pain is the enjoyment of a knower in a body. This experience is conditioned by the particular disposition of the knower. If he is too much attached to the things of his experience, then he has the experience of all pain and no pleasure. If he is not, then he has less pain and more pleasure. This explains how most of his feelings are more subjective than objective. The fact that a knower's experience in the body is more subjective throws light on the history of his experience. Body is the common cause of experience. It causes experience according to the conditions of knowledge. But it does not characterize experience in any particular manner. Experience is considered to be good or bad according to the particular dispositions of the knower. Now the question is, "how can a knower have particular dispositions?". We have seen how the body cannot explain it. So we have to find an answer to this in the knower himself. He has particular dispositions. As a result, he has particular types of experience.

The fact that his dispositions characterize his experience leads us to the idea that he has them even before he has obtained the present body. This points to the fact that he had experience even before the experience in the present body. For disposition is the result of experience. This experience again presupposes particular disposition, and so on ad infinitum. This means that there is no first beginning to his experience. To have beginningless experience he must also be beginningless. If there is nothing to bring about his beginning, then there should be nothing to bring about his end. Nityaa eva hi chetanaaha - tattva viveka So he is eternal ( anaadi nitya). .( to be continued ) Harihi Om Tatsat, ==== To: <dvaita-list@dvaita.org> Subject: Nature of Self in Brahma-Mimaamsaa - III From: "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r-c-i.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:20:33 -0400 Nature of Self - III A knower's capabilities Amukthaaha trividhaastatra neecha madhyochcha bhedataha Muktiyogyaaha tatra cha uchchaa nityaavartaaha tu madhyamaaha neechaa oyogyaaha - tattva-viveka The present experience of a knower throws light on his general disposition. Just as experiencing is his quality, a particular type of disposition is also his native quality. Though it is difficult to define it clearly in the case of an individual at given time, on the whole we have to admit that the experience of a knower is ruled by a general disposition of his. A deep insight into the behaviours of different individuals placed under the same external conditions reveals this fact. ( Ex: twins are born and grow under same conditions, but their behaviours will still be different). Whatever the circumstances may be, people are guided by their natural inclinations. To expect the same from all the same dispositions is impossible. In the presence of a particular disposition it is impossible to make a person conscious of other possibilities.

Individuals of certain dispositions look upon the world as containing nothing but misery, injustice, and evil. Under whatever conditions they may be put, they characterize everything as bad and add confusion to confusion. Thus their life is nothing but a hell. For this reason they are called tamoyogyas. There are other individuals of unreliable temperament. They are neither here nor there. Their dispositions change as circumstances change. They have no faith in anything. These are called mishra-jivas or nitya-samsaarins. There are yet others who have dispositions quite reverse to those of the tamo-yogyas. They have faith in the world, in its bright side, justice and goodness. However bad their circumstances are in the eyes of others, they are not dispirited, they are not confused, and they do not lose faith. Circumstances make them better. If they come to know that there is anything bad in the world, if they have capacity, they try to correct it. Under all circumstances they make themselves happy, and add happiness to the world. They are called mukti-yogyas. To know that there are different types of knowers does not in any way mar the attempts of a good soul to improve the world. What is so far stated is only the general character of the knowers. Over and above them there are temporary dispositions caused by ignorance. We observe that teaching and kindness have their good effects on the world. They are at times useless and misplaced. One who has understood the nature of the world must not be discouraged. As one who knows the truth one must rather expect disappointments. If a knower is still better, then he must never make much of the results of his work. He must do good things as he spontaneous expression of his self. To satisy these conditions is the test of a muktiyogya. Philosophy is for the upliftment of the world. We may therefore characterize the muktiyogyas in a more detailed manner. This indirectly gives us an idea of the other knowers. The character of mukti-yogyas To have good dispositions by nature, the knowers must have certain good qualities. To be naturally inclined to truth, they must of the nature of truth. The knowledge that is natural to them must always be correct. So they are of the nature of correct knowledge. In order to be naturally optimistic there must be peace in them. They must have it independently of external things. So they are of the nature of aananda. They are external.

So they are of the nature of sat. The upanishats describe them as sat, chit and aananda. These characteristics are obscured when they are conditioned by external entities. The conditions are brought upon themselves owing to their exclusive interest in the things that are not natural to them. This fact is revealed by an insight into a behaviour of a really good man in which his natural goodness is not fully expressed. We have to admit the truth of these considerations, if we are faithful to experience, which is our starting point. The perfection of a knower consists in abandoning what is not natural to him. This is the ideal in life. Though perfection is natural to every knower, it is not his unless he consciously realizes it. In the next email we will see what 'yogyataa' or Native individualities of the jivas means. ( to be continued ) Harihi Om Tatsat, Jayakrisbna Nelamangala == Nature of Self in Brahma Mimaamsaa - IV The native individualities ( Yogyataas) of the Jivas A knower's life is his own making. He does things according to his innate dispositions. Owing to his interest in the things external to him, his action is not directed to his improvement. So it binds him to the things external to him. Whatever the result of his action may be, it is in a sense an expression of his innate capacities. The capacities are the presuppositions of his action. The conception of the capacities of the knowers is the implication of the doctrine of karma. The following considerations make this idea clear. The experience of each jiva, in life, has its own individuality. So far, all thinkers have agreed that the experience of each jiva is the result of the karma of the same and by karma they mean, apoorva, adrista, punya or papa, but somehow they have not gone further and they have concluded hastily that each jiva is by nature pure or perfect and the life of experience is brought upon it owing to its karma. It is necessary to examine this conclusion.

Karma affects only a chetana and not an achetana. This means that there is something in the very nature of chetana that makes it affected by karma. Further, supposing that many individuals do the same act, the same act generates a particular karma in each individual. The Karma generated by a Jnaanin's act, say worship, must be much more effective than that generated by the act of an aJnaanin. In Geetha Bhashya, To think that one is one's own making seems to be innate in man. But to develop this thought interferes with the attempts to find out the truth of Brahman the all-doer. . Even supposing action leads to the result, there is nothing in action to explain only that thing is its result. Brahma-Dristishcha Sarvathaa kaaryaiva - Srimad Acharya Karma BrahmaDrishaa Heenam Na mukhyamiti keertitam | Tasmaat karmeti tat praahuhu yatkritam brahma darshinaa || - Geetha Tatparya 5.5 ( Karma which is devoid of Brahma-Dristi is not Mukhya. This is Vaidika Siddantha ( iti keertitam). For this reason ( tasmaat) that which is performed by the one who has Brahma-Dristi ( yat kritam brahma darshinaa) that is said to be Karma by Jnaanins ( karmeti tat praahuhu). Further, the same karma affects each chetana in a unique manner. After experiencing the fruit of a pApa, as the result, a particular chetana may develop vairaagya and such other virtues, but another chetana under the same predicament may develop a sort of stubbornness and add pApa to pApa. This implies that the influence of a Karma on a chetana presupposes a natural disposition of the same chetana. This is what is known as Yogyataa of that chetana. Applying the same thought to the beginningless history of the karma of a chetana, it can be seen that the natural disposition of a chetana is the logical presupposition of the course of the karma of the same chetana. If the truth of these considerations is accepted, then it goes without saying that the theories of Jiva propounded by thinkers previous to Srimad Acharya need a good deal of correction and modification as the case may be. We will get into the details of "Nature of self in non-brahma-mimaamsaa shastras" in a separate email. So, the logical implication of the doctrine of Karma is the native individuality of each jiva. Though Karma influences jiva, that jiva makes karma possible must not be forgotten. From the standpoint of the native individualities or the natural dispositions (yogyataas) of the jivas, the

jivas are classified into the three main types - saatvika (muktiyogya) , raajasa ( mishrajeeva) and taamasa ( tamo yogya). === Nature of Self in Brahma-Mimaamsaa- V Before we understand Jiva-Kartrtva, we should understand the concept of Svatantra. For the conception of Svatantra, for the lack of a better word in English we will use Independent. Note that the Svatantra concept of Srimad Acharya is all-comprehensive and the English word "Independent" fails to indicate this all-comprehensiveness. So for the lack of a better word we will use the word "Independent" for now. "The conception of Svatantra in Brahma-Mimaamsaa" calls for a separate series of emails, so we will get into only those aspects which may help us understand the "kartrtva" aspect. The Independent is that which has satta, pravrtti and pramiti independently of other things. This is implied in the very idea of the Independent. The reality i.e, existence ( satta), knowledge ( pramiti) and function pravrtti) of svatantra is self-established and that of asvatantra is derived from the svatantra. It is the sole director of all in the universe. It is everywhere. It is immanent in the world. It is not affected by the changes in the world. So It is not the material cause of the world in the sense that it does not convert Itself into a product. It's mere immanence directs the world process. In this sense, It is the efficient cause of the universe. It gives the world Satta, pravrtti, and Pramiti. It is svatantra. "Vishwa prasoothehe kaaraNam tu yat" ( Parabraman is the cause for Prakriti) "JagadEka Kaarana Raama ramaa ramaNa" - dvaadasha stotra "Aakaashaadi samastam cha tajjam tenaiva leeyate" - aNu bhaashya "Nityaanitya jagaddaatre" - Ishavaasya bhashya We may recall Nyaya Sudhaa here, "Na raajaadivat niyaamakatvamaatram antaryaamitvam. Api tarhi sattaadipradatvamityuktam bhavati" ( The Independent is not just a supervisor like a King supervising his kingdom.

The Independent is the source of the very reality of the world.) And Tatparya chandrakaa of Sri Vyaasatheertha, "Tat prasaada labdhatvaroopam tad adheenatvam | na tu yatheshta viniyogaarhatva roopam" The Independent is Brahman. It is Svatantra. So It is perfect. It has nothing to obtain by helping the world process. It directs the world, because to do so is the spontaneous expression of Its perfection. ||OM na prayojanavatvaat OM|| ||OM lokavattu leelaakaivalyam OM || It directs the world, in accordance with the karma of the jivas which are benefited by the world. Srimad Acharya accepts the force of Karma but subjects it to the will of God, the principle of all, including Karma and its force. Dravyam Karma cha kaalascha svabhaavo jeeva eva cha | Yat prasaadaat ime santi na santi yadupekshayaa || (matter, Action, Time, Nature of things, souls - all get their existence because of His will, if there is no will of His, then they do not exist). By Its direction of the world, the Jivas enjoy the fruits of the Karma, exhaust it, transcend it, and realize themselves more and more, and in course of time become perfect according to their capacities. So Its direction of the world is for the benefit of the Jivas. This points to the overflow of Its kindness. In directing the world, It follows the Karmas of the jivas and this gives a confidence to the jivas so that they may safely rely upon It. It is called Brahman, Ishwara (God) and so an and these names imply the same ideas. All our considerations of the nature of the Creator must amplify that He is the source of the world, otherwise they are not sound. Further questions like, " Why he did not create a better world? " are irrelavent. We can explain only what is given and to think of what ought to be given does not help us. Further, that the Independent is the Creator signifies that It is the very ground of the world. It is presupposed by the world. So, svatantra means JagadEka kaaraNa which means svatantra kaaraNa which means anapeksha kaaraNa, anapeksha kartaa, anapeksha kaarayitaa, asahaaya kartaa as elucidated in sutras ||OM janmaadyasya yataha OM || ||OM tad ananyatvamaarambhaNa shabaadibhyaha OM || Now let us see what happens even if there is slight a mix up while understanding the above "svatantra" principle. For this we go to Geetha,

Maamaatma paradeheShu pradvishanto abhyasooyakaaha - Geeta 16-18 Bhashya: Na kasyachit vishnuhu kaarayitaa yadisyaat maamapi idaaneem kaarayatu ityaadi. Eeshwaro yadi sarvasya kaarakaha kaarayitamaam adhyeti vaadinam brooyaat Sadaa adhoyaasyaseethihaa iti "Vishnu is not the Kaariyitr for anything (Na kasyachit vishnuhu kaarayitaa). If He is kaarayitr (yadi syaat) then let Him make me do this work now. (maamapi idaaneem kaarayatu ). Eeshwara is not the Kartr for anything. If He is the all-doer ( Eeshawaro yadi sarvasya kaarakaha) then let Him make me do this today" ( kaarayita maam adhya). To one who says likes this ( iti vaadinam ) we should tell him (brooyat) That "you are attaining adhogathi incessantly" ( sadaa adhoyaasyasi); this is certain i.e, This is shrutyaadi pramaaNa siddha. On this in Geetha vivrtthi, Raghavendra Tirtha says: "tarhi idaneem akurvaaNam maam kaarayatu kurvaaNam cha vighootayatu ityevam bhagavadapalaapa roopa pradvesham kurvantaha, nirdoshe doshavaan vadantaha gunapoorNe guNaheenataam vadantaha nityanaraka lakshaNaam gathim yaanthi" (I am not going to do anything now. ( idaaneem akurvaaNam maam). If God is the all-doer, then "let Him make me do something now ( kaarayatu ) Or let Him stop me from doing this" people who show their hate towards Parabrahman (pradvesham kurvantaha) by mixing up 'asvaatantrya' in the svatantra principle, by mixing up 'Non-completeness' with Para-Brahman which is given by Shruti as "Brihanto hi asmin guNaah" i.e, Brahman is so called because attributes in It are complete. Such people are destined towards eternal damnation.) One who sidelines, ignores, or denies the sarva-kartrtva ( all-doership) of Parabrahman in any sense of the term, is not fit for Brahma-Vichaara or Shaastra-vichaara i.e, he is not an Adhikaari. This is the central idea behind all the above quoted texts of bhashya and tippani. BaadaraayaNa has come to the same conclusion in the Brahma-Sutras as || OM Aavrittirasakridupadeshaat OM || "Brahma-DrishTishcha sarvathaa kaaryaiva" - Srimad Acharya What is Brahma-Drishti? - "The knowledge that because He is Sarva-Kartr,

the all doer, He is svatantra - Paramaatma" Srimad Acharya tells us to have this Brahma-Drishti at all times, in all the things we do. Sutrakaara is making this position explicit through the above Sutra which says, "through this Brahma-Drishti, if one tries over and over again Avritti) to understand Shastraartha then only he will understand Brahma-Tattva according to his capacity, otherwise it is not possible" . Therefore, to fix the attention on svatantra is possible only with Jignaasaa, philosophical enquiry. The subject of philosophical enquiry consists of three aspects, revealed by the pramaaNas, pratyaksha, anumaana and Aagama. As svatantra is guNapoorNa, the enquiry that leads to the conception of it can never be final. The determination of an aspect of svatantra which we have now must be the result of previous enquiry and it must form at the same time the basis of later enquiry. The process of enquiry is thus endless. The nature of self is to do this enquiry. ( to be continued === Nature of Self in Brahma Mimaamsaa - VI Let us understand the "svatantra" conception further. "Svatantram asvatantram cha dvividham tattvamishyate" - Tattva samkhyaana tattva: that which is revealed by PramaaNa. This means that svatantra and asvatantra are philosophically justified ( pramaaNa siddha). While saying that there are two tattvas - svatantra and asvatantra, Srimad Acharya does not say there are two tattvas - Brahman and the World. He says to hold that there are two Tattvas viz., Brahman and the world is misleading because this position does not signify that Brahman is the ground of the world. But to hold that there are two tattvas viz., svatantra and asvatantra clearly signifies that svatantra is the ground of the asvatantra ( or paratantra : para is svatantra and tantra means kaarya ( work). So paratantra is the work of svatantra. There is only one principle that is svatantra; this principle is

established as the ground of asvantantra. Asvatantra is derived from Svatantra and it is therefore the mark of svatantra. Both as the mark of svatantra and as derived from It it can never be unreal or mithyaa. And each has thus its own individuality and is therefore distinct from the other. Svatantra is significant with its reference to asvatantra and asvatantra is significant with its reference to svatantra. So svatantra implies how its reality is self-established and how it gives reality to asvatantra. Asvatantra implies how its reality is derived and thereby points to svatantra as its ground. This is why upanishats describe svatantra as "Ekamevaadviteeyam brahma" - (Brahman is the only one without the other) "Yadidam parameshvarasya advaitatvam cha visheshaNamuktam natat dviteeyavasturaahityaabhipraayeNa. Kintu paramaarthataha . uttamamaarthamabhipretyeti "dvaitasya asvaatantryam abhipretya dvaitamivetyuktam, na tu dvaitaabhaavamabhipretya" - - Nyaaya sudhaa The central idea of these passages is that Brahman is advaita, but this does NOT imply the unreality of the world. Consistent with these ideas, Srimad Acharya speaks of panchabheda and taaratamya. Panchabheda is the expression of the distinction between svatantra and asvatantra. And taaratamya is an expression of the persisting individuality of a jiva. With these conceptions, Srimad Achaarya, asks one to concentrate on and develop one's individuality, abandoning at the same time the ideas of the false ideals, such as that one becomes Brahman Itself or that one becomes equal to Brahman. With this position if he has denied the ideals that are not within the reach of individual souls, he has made room for the full expression of their individuality. One may ask, How can an individual who is asvatantra develop his individuality? The position that Brahman is svatantra and all else is asvatantra seems to imply apparently that on the part of a self any attempt at developing his individuality is meaningless, because attempt is an expression of free will and freedom of will is inconsistent with the supposition that the self is asvatantra.

Srimad Acharya's answer to this difficulty is the following: Asvatantra does not mean the negation of free-will. An individual self is characterized by the mental states consisting of experience (anubhava), desire ( ichchaa) and volition (prayatna). Of these, the desire and volition that lead to the attempt at obtaining something (saadhana gochara) are called will (pravrtti). Will presupposes the determination of an end (prayojana nischaya). Both Will and determination of an end involve selection or choice and this involves freedom. An individual self is given with all these states and with them he is determined to be asvatantra. This means that even his free-will is asvatantra. It is asvatantra in the sense that its very nature ( svaroopa) is derived from svatantra. (Remember that satta, svaroopa, pramiti, pravrtti of svatantra is self-established and that of asvatantra is derived from the svatantra.) So, the freedom of a self in its selection of particular ends and of the means for realizing them is not opposed to the truth that the self as a whole is asvatantra. Further, the supposition that because a self is asvatantra it has no freedom to do anything involves self-contradiction, since the fact of this supposition itself is the result of free-will. So, even though a self is asvatantra, it can improve its individuality to the fullest extent. The complete improvement of its individuality consists in fully realizing svatantra as its ground and the state of this realization is called Mukti (To be continued) === To: <dvaita-list@dvaita.org> Subject: Nature of Self in Brahma-Mimaamsaa - VII From: "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r-c-i.com> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:24:22 -0400 Nature of Self in Other schools of thought The word chetana is literally applied to one who knows. The knower is chetana. A knower is in a body. Without him there is no body. As the principle of existence of his body he is called a Jiva. Understanding the conception of Self in different schools of thought is closely related to the Theory of knowledge in these different schools of thought. We will not get into the details of epistemology in different schools of thought, as it is a very vast subject by itself, however, we will study them only to that extent as to understand the nature of self in these different schools of thought.

We need to do this because, we get a clear understanding of a thing only when we know what it is and what it is not . This point is made very clear by upanishat, "Vidyaamcha avidyaamcha yastadvEdo ubhayagum saha" - Ishavaasya upanishat For this reason, understanding the nature of Self in schools of thought other than Brahma-Mimaamsaa shaastra may not be out of place. The Bouddhas, in place of 'I' accept 4 skandhas - vijnaana (nirvikalpaka knowledge), samjnaa ( savikalpaka knowledge), samskaara ( impression) and vedanaa feeling of pain). Buddhism considers the thought of the unity of 'I' to be an illusion. Substance is not a real entity in Buddhism and therefore there should be no thought of substance or 'I' according to them. But even the Buddhist thinkers experience 'I' as well as any other thinkers do. They somehow take interest in Nairaatmya vaada i.e, the theory that denies aatman as a unitary substance and consider anything opposed to their view as imaginary (vikalpa). But they cannot justify their position. So, the only implication of experience is that 'I' is a substance and the so-called skandhas are its properties. The Nyaaya-Vaisheshika thinkers hold that knowledge is not an essential property of 'I'. They consider knowledge to appear in 'I' owing to the relation of 'I' to the manas and the body. If their position is correct, then 'I' can not be chit, and it must be same as inert things. Charvaaka also has the same difficulty that if 'I' is inert, then there can never be the appearance of knowledge. So if there is to be knowledge, then 'I' must be chit. Otherwise there can be no knowledge at all. Knowledge is a fact, so 'I' is chit. The Saamkhya, Yoga and Poorva-Mimaamsaa thinkers differ from the Nyaaya-Vaisheshika thinkers on account of the same difficulty. They all hold that source of knowledge is the entity which is of the character of chaitanya, and they call this entity aatman. Saamkhya and Yoga hold that aatman is chit. This is not consistent with the nature of knowledge. Knowledge is relative to object. But they hold that aatman as chit or chaitanya is objectless. Poorva-Mimaamsaa holds that aatman has the power of chit (Jnaana-shakti). This is not consistent with the self-evident character of chit. If the power of chit is self-evident, then it is not different from chit. In this

connection, we need to make a difference between the two Mimamsaa thinkers Kumaarila and Prabhaakara. Prabhaakara holds that knowledge is self-evident. Against this we may note that aatman which is not self-evident cannot have the property that is self-evident. Kumaarila holds that knowledge is only inferred as the source of 'knownness' , a property which an object acquires when it is known. Against this we may note that if knowledge is not self-evident then it cannot be known. So, we may conclude that aatman or 'I' is of the nature of chaitanya and it is self-evident. Advaita thinkers arrive at the conclusion that there are two types of knowledge, one of which is knowledge in the true sense of the term and the other is only so called because it reveals objects. They call the former as svaroopa-jnaana and the latter as vritti-jnaana. antahkaraNa is the abode of vritti-jnaana. They show that the svaroopa-jnaana is nitya (eternal), svayamjyoti ( self-evident) and akhanda ( undifferentiated unity). They call this knowledge as chit or chaitanya. The upanishadic teaching that Brahman is Satya jnaana aananda anantha , corresponds to the Advaita description of knowledge as nitya, svayamjyoti and akhanda. Knowledge as Brahman is the ground of all. It is the ultimate principle of the universe. It is the Absolute. Chaitanya is the ground of all that appears and in fact it has nothing outside itself. The system of advaita presents two theories of Jeeva. 1. There is only one Jeeva ( eka jeeva vaada). According to this, it is the chaitanya that reflects in Avidyaa "Ato chinmaatraashritam ajnaanam jeevapakshapaatitvaat jeevaashritam ityuchyate." - VivaraNa prameya Samgraha (Therefore though ajnaana is in pure chit, it is partial to jiva and therefore it is said to be in the jiva). 2. There are many Jeevas ( bahu jeeva vaada) . According to this, it is the chaitanya that reflects in antahkaraNa. There are several antahkaraNas and

therefore there are several jeevas. Chit is conditioned by antahkaraNa ( upaadhi) and in this capacity it is called Jeeva ( individual soul). It is at the same time marked by antahkaraNa (lakshaNa) and in this capacity it is called Saakshi.. AntahkaraNa is different in every body. Therefore, Jiva and its Saakshii also are different, i.e., each body has its own jiva and saakshi. Jeeva in its essence is Brahman. A jiva is evident as 'I' for in essence it is chaitanya itself. Its life consists of three states viz., waking, dreaming and sleeping. In the waking state it has the experience caused by the external sense organs and antahkaraNa. In dream it has the experience caused by only antahkaraNa. In deep sleep, it has the experience caused by avidyaavritti. If it realizes that all this is is chaitanya, then it is free from individuality and is Brahman Itself. Jiva is sat, chit and aananda. By nature it is ever mukta. Its sense of bondage alone is mithyaa. By the destruction of ajnaana its mithyaa sense of bondage is removed and all that remains is akhanda Brahman devoid of all distinctions. In Vishistaadvaita, chit is individual soul. It is also called jiva. It is characterized by self-consciousness. It is the substratum of knowledge. It is the doer of things, and the enjoyer of results. It has an infinitesimal size. It is the body of Ishwara. It is therefore dependent on Him. It has in the empirical state, its own manas, sense organs and body. It is different from them all. It is also different from the knowledge that happens to it. It is different from those jivas that occupy different bodies that are contemporary with its body. It has no beginning and no end. It is supposed to have birth and death owing to its relation to a fresh body and separation from it respectively. The course of its births and deaths is called bondage ( samsaara). Bondage is really external to it and it is due to its beginningless karma. Jiva's body is achit and its soul is Ishwara. A jiva is naturally of the character of bliss. It is therefore defectless by nature. On similar lines, in the next email we will see what the "Nature of Self" in the light of "theory of knowledge" in Madhwa's Brahma-Mimaamsaa shastra is. Harihi Om Tatsat. === Nature of Self in Brahma-mImAmsA - VIII Against all these positions, we can summarize the nature of Self in Siddantha as follows:

Knowledge is relative to its object. The relation between knowledge and its object is natural. The truth of knowledge is "svatah". It consists in grasping its object as it is. There are two types of Jnaana, 1. Svaroopa Jnaana and 2. Vritti Jnaana. Svaroopa Jnaana : is a property of the knower. Svaroopa Jnaana is True as a rule. This knowledge belongs to the very nature of the self, produced by sakshii. Vritti Jnaana: is a property of Manas. It is generated by sense organs and Manas. Vritti Jnaana is True or Untrue according to conditions. The falsity of knowledge consists in grasping the real as unreal and the unreal as real. True knowledge is generated by PramaaNas: Pratyaksha, anumaana, and aagama. The object of knowledge is as a rule a qualified entity. It consists of having substantive and attributive aspects. The attributes of a thing are identical with it. Yet they are distinquished as attributes owing to vishesha. Vishesha is in all things, including even Brahman. In each thing its number is infinite. The world is real. It consists of different entities. Difference is real. The entities of the world may be brought under two heads: chetana and achetana. Chetana is that which knows. There are many chetanas. There are three kinds of them: 1. Good 2. Bad and 3. of doubtful character. Everything however bad it may be is the means for the perfection of the world. In the achetana things Sattva is good, Rajas and Tamas are bad. But the bad things help the realization of the good. Even so, the presence of the bad jivas, help the realization of the goodness of the good jivas. Rajas and Tamas are inevitable for the sustenance of the world. Even so bad jivas are inevitable if there is to be any spiritual advancement in the world. Conflict is the way to growth. Badness is the way to goodness. Knowledge is the property of a knower. Knowledge is not substantive. It is attributive. It is a property of an entity. This entity is what is presented as 'I'. So knowledge is a property of 'I'. This is proved by the experience 'I' know this or that thing. This experience is equivalent to "I

have the knowledge of this or that thing". If knowledge were all and there were no 'I' , then there would be no experience at all. Without knower there is no knowledge. If knowledge itself were the knower, then it would not be an object. The knower is 'I' 'I' is not relative to any object. It is independent of objects. In self-consciousness there is not idea of any objects. But there is 'I'. In the same way, during deep sleep, there is no idea of objects. But 'I' persists then. If 'I' were not then, then there would be no idea of sleep at all. So 'I' endures at all times. It is there even though the objective world is negated. But the case of knowledge is different. Knowledge is relevant to object, because without object knowledge is impossible. This means that knowledge is different from 'I'. But 'I' is not some kind of knowledge. Though the objective world is not experienced, for instance in deep sleep, there is the knowledge of 'I'. 'I' is not without the idea of 'I'. This idea is the same as self-consciousness. At times self-consciousness is in a very clear manner, and at other times it is not clear. It is clear when 'I' is consciously distinguished from other objects. For instance, we may take the experience 'I know this jar' In this experience 'I' is the knower, 'jar' is the known, and they are distinguished from each other. So the consciousness of 'I' is clear. In the case of deep sleep, there is no consciousness of objects and therefore the consciousness of 'I' is not very clear. After the sleep is over, there is the memory 'I had a good sleep' or recognition 'I am the same that slept'. So, 'I' is not without consciousness. Its essence is consciousness. Consciousness is chaitanya. 'I' is chit. So we may conclude that, 'I' is chit and knowledge is its property. If knowledge is the essence of 'I', then it must be enduring even as 'I' is. If it is not enduring, then it becomes only an accidental property of 'I.' If we have understood the truth of Svatantra, we must not bind it by the considerations which we ordinarily call good, bad, evil, moral, immoral etc. That which is consistent with the truth of svatantra alone is Moral. That is good which is an Expression of svatantra ( kim tatonyanmagalam naama) and that is evil which negates svatantra. "Isho yato guNa doshaadi satve" - Brahma sutra Bhashya . Svatantra is the maker of guna and dosha. That It is the maker of Guna and dosha naturally means that that which is consistent with It is guna,(moral) and that which is not is Dosha. ( immoral) Brahman's perfection is Its body. It creates the world. It maintains it.

It destroys it. It controls it. It binds the Jivas. It gives them knowledge. It enlightens them. "bandako bhavapashena bhava paashaat cha mOchakaha" "Ajnaaninaam jnaanado vishNuhu Jnaaninaam mOkshadashcha saha " It frees them. It gives them perfection. It is not bound to do anything. Yet what it does is for the good of the world. If anything is favoured by It, it becomes good. Without Its favour nothing can be good. Good is good because it has Its favour. Though It is in all, It favours certain things, and they are good. The jivas are in bondage because they have so far not had Its favour. For the same reason, the jivas have false knowledge (avidyaa) and false attachments and the result is bondage. They must earn Its favour by their karma, Jnaana and Bhakti. What do we understand by these terms. What is Bhakti? - Srimad Acharya does not give room for blind faith in the name of what is popularly known as "Bhakti". "Mahaatmya Jnaana poorvastu sudrida sneho bhaktiriti proktaha" "Parama sneha samyukto yathaartha jnaanato bhavet, saa bhaktiriti vijneyaa saadhanam bhoga mokshayoho" What is Karma? "Ekamapi karma atadaashryeNa na kaaryam" - ( Even a single karma should not be done without the knowledge of the svaatantrya of paramaatma) "Svaatantryam manyamaanasya raagaat dharmam cha kurvataha doshah syaat" (one who has assumed that he has svaatantrya or freedom ( svaatantryam manyamaanasya) For him who does Dharma with kartrtvaa abhimaana there is Dosha. I will repeat this from an earlier email, Karma BrahmaDrishaa Heenam Na mukhyamiti keertitam | Tasmaat karmeti tat praahuhu yatkritam brahma darshinaa || - Geetha Tatparya 5.5 ( Karma which is devoid of Brahma-Dristi is not Mukhya. This is Vaidika Siddantha ( iti keertitam). For this reason ( tasmaat) that which is performed by the one who has Brahma-Dristi ( yat kritam brahma darshinaa) that is said to be Karma by Jnaanins ( karmeti tat praahuhu).

So, karma means vidyaa-karma i.e, that which is done as part of the understanding of svatantra. One may say, well then what about purushaarthas - dharma, artha, kaama and moksha? Don't we do all karmas for achieving these purushaarthas. ( Purushaartha is also known as pumartha in shaastra). For an adhikarii who has Brahma-Dristi, Dharma is dharma because of NaraayaNa. Artha is artha because of NaraayaNa Kaama is Kaama because of NaraayaNa Mosha is Moksha because of NaraayaNa. Therefore, for him NaraayaNa is the only purushaartha. "Anaadi vidyaa-karmaadi vaichitryaat vaichitryam" - Srimad AnandaTheertha By Its favour they have correct knowledge and correct estimation of things. They are then completely attached to It and they have realized themselves. In the next email (which will probably be the last in this series), we will try to put it all together in the light of what has been said so far, and see what jeeva kartrtva really means in Brahma-Mimaamsaa shastra.

==== To: <dvaita-list@dvaita.org> Subject: Nature self in Brahma-Mimaamsaa -IX From: "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r-c-i.com> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:12:01 -0400 Nature self in Brahma-Mimaamsaa -IX So, the Kartrtva of a Jiva is to do Brahma-Jignaasaa not because he is the doer, but because the very nature of self is to do Brahma-Jignaasaa, and as one progresses in the path of Brahma-Jigyaasaa, the level of which is directly dependent on one's adhikaara , the svatantra-paratantra viveka becomes more and more clear and one realizes that Hari is the all-doer. That is why an Uttamaadhikarii is that one who has "Vishnu-paadaika Samsharyatva" and "sanyasta akhila karmavaan". ( refer to the first email in reference to Uttamaadhikaara which alone decides Brahma-Jigyaasa) Questions like, "If god is doing everything, then what am I doing?" OR "If nobody made nitya-vastus like space, time etc then how can we hold that

God is sarva-srishti-kartaa? " OR "If God gives results according to one's Karma, then where is svaatantrya of God?" "If His power is unlimited, why should He take the trouble of creating and governing the world?" ... Asking a question like this is not wrong by itself. But it indicates the lack of Brahma-Jigyaasaa. This is not being said to insult the person who asks these questions. But it is being said to indicate the indispensability of Brahma-Jigyaasaa. Even the divinities are no exception to this, as Srimad Acharya says in Geetha-Bhashya, "Ekam cha tattvatO jnaatum vinaa sarvajnataam naraha | na samarthO maHendrOpi tasmaat sarvatra jigyasEt || ( Even to understand a single aspect of the Knowledge of Parabrahman correctly, is impossible without sarvajnatva for even Mahendra , therefore an adhikarii has to do Brahma-Jigyaasaa in all situations) Therefore, those questions are legitimate only if they lead to Brahma-Jigyaasaa. If one has acquired just prameya-jnaana and not gone through the rigor of regular process of study, reflection and assimilation shravaNa, manana, nidhidhyaasana roopa Brahma-Jigyaasaa) then "Sarvakartrtva of Brahman", "Svatantratva of Brahman", "hari sarvottamatva" "Srishti kartrtva of Brahman" are just mere words. Generally man does not strive for attaining to conclusions by means of reflection relevant to them., but easily adopts the conclusion arrived at by others. The chief defect of this behaviour is this. Conclusion is after all a statement of conclusion. Statement consists of words. The meaning of these words may be totally different from the meaning of the words that state the conclusion when it is arrived at by means of a regular process of thinking. Thus the conclusion resulting from thinking is entirely different from the conclusion adopted without undergoing the thinking process. Even as one enjoys the beauty of a thing, only when one actually sees it, the weight of a conclusion is appreciated only by one who has actually arrived at it by a regular system of thinking. But when thinking actually takes place it decides everything and there is no place for faith or belief about any conclusion. Same way, reading translations is okay only if it leads to Brahma-Jigyaasaa and is not okay if conclusions are adopted blindly. As long as empirical reasoning rules, Brahma-Jnaana remains out of reach. That is why Brahman can be understood only thro a proper study of Shaastra. One has to "grow" into those prameyas ( or conclusions), and growth comes only as a result of Brahma-Jigyaasaa, which is in essence the very nature

of self. So whether we say "growth of one's self" or "growth thro Brahma-jigyaasaa janya jnaana" it means one and the the same. So to say, "Jeeva has kartrtva" does not mean he has doership, but it only means "doing Brahma-Jigyaasaa is his very nature, svaroopathaha" which is also stated as "Jeeva has kartrtva in doing Brahma-Jigyaasaa" It is like saying, "tiger is a cruel animal" or "cruelty is the very nature of tiger". We also state this as "tiger has got cruelty" as though tiger actually 'did ' something to get this cruelty. It is like saying, "sweetness is the very nature of sugar" which is also stated as "Sugar has got sweetness". The latter statement, seems to suggest sweetness of sugar was gotten by 'doing' something. Keeping in mind these concepts in tact, now let us go back and study the Bhashya which talks about "jiva-kartrtva" , the interpretation of which was the reason for this series on "Nature of Self in Brahma-Mimaamsaa" in the first place. jiivasya kartR^itvaabhaave shaastrasyaaprayojakatvaapatte What is the kartrtva that is being talked about here?. The kartrtva is that of shaastraadhyayana, study of shaastra, i.e, brahma-jigyaasaa and nothing else. Not to recognize this fact leads to the confusion as to whether jeeva is the real doer or not. So here is the translation of the bhashya: "If jiiva were not to be the doer of Brahma-Jigyaasa (by his very nature), then shaastra would have no scope". Now if we go back and read all the statements of Srimad-Acharya in this light, there is no confusion as such. Let us study a couple that have come up on the internet so far: I) ACHARYA MADHVA EMPHATICALLY SAYS IN GITA BHASYA "NAHI PRATIBIMBASYA KRIYA". THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT INITIATIVE ON THE PART OF

THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL. What is the kartrtva that is being talked about here?. There is no mention of Brahma-Jigyaasa here. That is Jeeva is paratantra like a piece of stone is, ashmaadivat. "OM ashmAdivachcha tadanupapattiH OM" II) Now the question is weather he has and power to act that is part of its svarUpa. If the answer is no than what differentiates jIva from jaDa? . what is missing in this para is that "Jiva svaroopa is to do brahma-jigyaasaa". So, the correct answer to the question above is Yes or No depending on what 'act' here means. If it means "doing Brahma-Jigyaasaa" the answer is Yes because that is his very nature. Refer to "Nature of self in other systems of thought" for a discussion on problems with the consideration that Jeeva is same as Jada. This is will be the last posting in this series. For vaak-shuddhi, let us recall some moola Srimad Acharya vaakyaas: yathaa gurudattam tathaiva bhavati. samyak guruprasaadascha mukhyato dristi kaaraNam shravaNAdi trayotpanna drishtaiva svechhayaa harih prasanno muktido nityam anyathaa na kathamchana jnaanino brahma-vastu vaibhavena muktihi syaaditi gururvareNa vaa muktihi upapatteh dravyam karma cha kaalascha svabhaavo jeeva eva cha yat prasaadaat ime santi na santi yadupekshayaa. Aakaashaadi samastam cha tajjam tEnaiva leeyate sOnutpatti layah kartaa jeevastadvashagassadaa Sree KrishnaarpaNamastu

||Sree gurubhyO namaha harihi Om|| athaatho brahma jigyaasaa kartavyaa - shaastra punaraavrittihi ===