{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_7175/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_7175","id":"gutenberg_7175","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7175","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Poetry","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Dvaita (Vedanta) -- Early works to 1800","Hindu philosophy -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Originally scanned at sacred-texts.com by John B. Hare.\nThis eBook was produced by Chetan K. Jain\n\n\n\nTHE TATTVA-MUKTAV\u00c2L\u00ce\n\n\nby P\u00fbr.n\u00e2nanda Chakravartin\n\n\n\n\nJOURNAL\n\nOF\n\nTHE ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY.\n\n\n\n[New Series, Volume XV]\n\n\n[London, Tr\u00fcbner and Company]\n\n[1883]\n\n\n{Scanned and edited by Christopher M. Weimer, April 2002}\n\n\n\nART. IV.--__The Tattva-muktav\u00e2l\u00ee of Gau.da-p\u00fbr.n\u00e2nanda-chakra-\nvartin__.  Edited and Translated by Prof. E. B. COWELL.\n\n\nThe following poem was written by a native of Bengal, named\nP\u00fbr.n\u00e2nanda Chakravartin.  Nothing is known as to his date; if\nthe work were identical with the poem of the same name mentioned\nin the account of the R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja system in M\u00e2dhava's \nSarvadar\u0161anasa.mgraha, it would be, of course, older than the\nfourteenth century, but this is very uncertain; I should be\ninclined to assign it to a later date.  The chief interest of the\npoem consists in its being a vigorous attack on the Ved\u00e2nta\nsystem by a follower of the P\u00fbr.napraj\u00f1a school, which was\nfounded by Madhva (or \u00c2nandat\u00eertha) in the thirteenth century in\nthe South of India.  Some account of his system (which in many\nrespects agrees with that of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja) is given in Wilson's\n\"Hindu Sects;\" [Footnote: Works, vol. i. pp. 139-150.  See also\nProf. Monier Williams, J.R.A.S. Vol. XIV. N.S. p. 304.] but the\nfullest account is to be found in the fifth chapter of the\nSarvadar\u0161anasa.mgraha.  Both the R\u00e2m\u00e2nujas and the P\u00fbr.napraj\u00f1as\nhold in opposition to the Ved\u00e2nta [Footnote: As the different\nsystems are arranged in the Sarva D. S. according to the\nirrespective relation to the Ved\u00e2nta, we can easily understand why\nM\u00e2dhava there places these two systems so low down in the scale,\nand only just above the atheistic schools of the Ch\u00e2rv\u00e2kas,\nBuddhists, and Jainas.] that individual souls are distinct from\nBrahman; but they differ as to the sense in which they are thus\ndistinct.  The former maintain that \"unity\" and \"plurality\" are\nequally true from different points of view; the latter hold that\nthe relation between the individual soul and Brahman is that of a\nmaster and a servant, and consequently that they are absolutely\nseparate.  It need not surprise us, therefore, to see that,\nalthough R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja is praised in the fifty-third sloka of this\npoem as \"the foremost of the learned,\" some of his tenets are\nattacked in the eightieth.\n\nThe Sanskrit text of this poem was published in the Benares\nPa.n.dit for Sept. 1871, by Pa.n.dit Vech\u00e2r\u00e2ma \u0160arman.  An edition,\nwith a Bengali translation, was also published some years ago in\nCalcutta, by Jagad\u00e2nanda Gosw\u00e2min; [Footnote: No date is given.]\nbut the text is so full of false readings of every kind, and the\ntranslation in consequence goes so often astray, that I have not\nfound much help from it.  I have collated the text in the Benares\nPa.n.dit (A.) with a MS. (B.) sent to me by my friend, Pa.n.dit\nMahe\u0161achandra Ny\u00e2yaratna, the Principal of the Calcutta Sanskrit\nCollege.  He has also sent me the readings in certain passages from\ntwo MSS. in the Calcutta Sanskrit College Library (C.D.); and I\nhave to thank him for his help in explaining some obscure allusions.\n\nThe poem itself seems to me an interesting contribution to the\nhistory of Hindu philosophical controversy, [Footnote: Dr. Banerjea\nhas quoted and translated several stanzas in his 'Dialogues on Hindu\nPhilosophy.'] and so I have subjoined a literal English translation.\nI would venture to remind my readers of the words of the manager in\nthe prologue of the M\u00e2lavik\u00e2gnimitra, \"Every old poem is not good\nbecause it is old, nor is every modern poem to be blamed simply\nbecause it is modern.\"\n\n\n\nTRANSLATION.\n\n\n1. Victorious is the garland-wearing foster-son of Nanda,--the\nprotector of his devotees,--the destroyer of the cruel king,--\ndark-blue like the delicate tam\u00e2la blossoms,--formidable with his\nmany outspread rays,--mighty with all his attendant powers,\n[Footnote: The Bengali translation explains these as the internal\npowers (__antara\"ng\u00e2__) Hl\u00e2din\u00ee, etc., and the external\n(__bahira\"ng\u00e2__) Prahv\u00e2, etc.]--and having his forehead radiant\nlike the moon.\n\n2. This follower of the Pur\u00e2.nas, who holds by his own belief,\nreads to his heart's content the Pur\u00e2.na in the morning, and he\nlistens devotedly with profound meditation, his whole mind intent\non the meaning of the book.\n\n3. Having abandoned the doctrine of the oneness of the individual\nand the Supreme Soul, he establishes by argument their mutual\ndifference; having used \u0160ruti and \u0160m.riti as a manifold proof, he\nemploys Inference in many ways in the controversy.\n\n4. This individual soul must be different from Brahman because it\nis always circumscribed,--many are the similar arguments which are\nto be acknowledged in the course of our reasonings.\n\n5. \"Might we not say that a jar and a web could be called identical\nbecause both are cognizable?\" [Footnote: There is a favourite\nNaiy\u00e2yik example of a __keval\u00e2nvayi__ middle term, \"a jar is\nnameable because it is cognizable as a web is.\"]  But we cannot say\nso in regard to these two things in question, for Brahman alone is\nthat which cannot be cognized.\n\n6. The sentence \"Thou art That\" (__tat tvam asi__) which is\nunderstood in its primary meaning as referring to the object of the\nVeda, [Footnote: Or __vedavishaye__ may perhaps simply mean __vede__,\ncf. \u0161l. 112.]--the author thus explains its meaning, as he knows his\nown doctrine, and has fixed his mind on the system of Duality; since\nthe word 'that' (__tat__) is here indeclinable and implies a\ndifference, and the word 'thou' (__tvam__) means that which is to be\ndifferentiated, the sign of the genitive case has been elided;\n[Footnote: The author here explains the sentence __tat tvam asi__, as\nreally meaning __tasya tvam asi__ \"thou art Its.\"] \"thou only,\" such\nis not the meaning of the sentence [Footnote: In \"Thou art that,\" \n'thou' and 'that' would refer to the same subject \n(__s\u00e2m\u00e2n\u00e2dhikara.nya__)].\n\n7. He is all-knowing, all-seeing, Himself the three worlds, in whose\nbelly thou art thyself contained,--He causes at once by a movement of\nthe brow the creation, preservation, and absorption of all beings!\nThou art ignorant, and only seest relatively, He is the adorable, the\none Witness of all worlds; thou art changing, He is One; thou art all\ndull and stained, not such is He.\n\n8. As for the text \"I am Brahman,\" you must take the nominative case\nas only used there for the genitive by the licence of an inspired\nspeaker.  How, if it were otherwise, would there be a genitive in the\nillustration, [Footnote: This is often used as an illustration in\nVed\u00e2nta works, as __e.g.__ B.rihad \u00c2ra.ny. Up. ii. 1. 20, \"as the\nspider proceeds with his web, as the little sparks proceed from fire,\nso from this Soul proceed all vital airs, all worlds, all gods, all\nbeings.\"] as in the sentence \"as the sparks of the fire\"?\n\n9. The poets call a lad fire (from his hot temper), the face the orb\nof a full moon, the eye a blue lotus, the bosom mount Meru, and the\nhand a young shoot; by a confusion of the superimposed appearance we\nmay thus have the idea of identity where there is still a real\ndifference; and so too must we deal with those words of \u0160ruti \"I am\nBrahman.\" [Footnote: This is another suggested method of interpreting\nthe words \"I am Brahman.\"  It may be only a common case of \"qualified\nsuperimponent indication,\"  as \"the man of the Panj\u00e2b is an ox\" (cf.\nK\u00e2vya Prak\u00e2\u0161a, ii. 10-12).  Cf. the definition of upach\u00e2ra in the\nS\u00e2hitya Darpa.na: __upach\u00e2ro hi n\u00e2m\u00e2tyanta.m vi\u0161akalitayoh\n\u0161\u00e2d.ri\u0161y\u00e2ti\u0161ayamahimn\u00e2 bhedaprat\u00eetisthaganam\u00e2tram__].\n\n10. As there are many waves in the sea, so are we many individual\nsouls in Brahman; the wave can never become the sea; how then wilt\nthou, the individual soul, become Brahman?\n\n11. In the depths of all \u0160\u00e2stras the two things are both recognized,\nknowledge and ignorance; so too virtue and vice; and thus also\nscience, and next to it closely clinging behind, but other than it,\nappears false science; thus everywhere there are opposite pairs, and\nsimilar is the notorious pair, Brahman and the soul.  How can these\ntwo have oneness?  Let the good answer with an upright mind.\n\n12. Thou, O Soul, art the reflection of the Supreme Being, who\npossesses the power of illusion and is the substratum of all, while\nHe, the adorable, shines forth as Himself the original; the one moon\nin the sky is seen manifold in water and the like; therefore there\nis a difference between thee and Brahman as between the reflection\nand its original.\n\n13. Yonder Brahman is described by the words of the sacred texts as\nnot to be known, nor to be reasoned about, and as devoid of all\ndesire; but thou art within the range of speech and of thought; how\nshall there be oneness of thee and Brahman?\n\n14. Thou art verily bereft of thy understanding, O individual Soul,\nby the darkness of this doctrine of M\u00e2y\u00e2, while thou constantly\nproclaimest like a madman \"I am Brahman\"; where is thy sovereignty,\nwhere thy empire, where thy omniscience?  There is as vast a\ndifference between Brahman and thee as between mount Meru and a\nmustard-seed!\n\n15. Thou art a finite soul, He is indeed all-pervading; thou\nstandest only on one spot, while He is everywhere always; thou,\nbeing of a moment, art happy and unhappy; He is happy at all times;\nhow canst thou say \"I am He\"?  Fie! art thou not ashamed?\n\n16. Glass is glass, and a gem is a gem; a shell is but a shell,\nand silver is silver; there is never seen a transposition\n[Footnote: Dr. Banerjea (__Dialogues__, p. 379) reads __kad\u00e2py\natyayaj\u00f1\u00e2nam, i.e.__ vyabhich\u00e2ra; but all the MSS. which I have\ncompared read __na kad\u00e2 vyatyaya__ (or __vyatyaya.m__) __j\u00f1\u00e2nam;\nkad\u00e2__ seems irregularly used for __kad\u00e2pi__, as it is also in\n\u0161l. 113, __c.__] among them.  But wherever other things are\nimagined, to be found in something else, it is through an error;\nand so it is when the soul utters such words as \"that art thou!\"\n\n17. The meaning of the word \"__that__\" (__tat__) is an ocean of\nimmortality, filled with manifest and supreme felicity; the\nmeaning of the word \"__thou__\" is a most miserable being,\nbewildered in mind through the burden of the fear of existence;\nthese two can never be one, they are divided by the nature of\nthings; the doctrine of Non-unity is the truth for all worlds,\nthou art but His slave.\n\n18. If Brahman were meant by these words, the power employed\nwould not be Denotation, for their literal meaning does not apply;\n[Footnote: In such sentences as \"That art thou,\" \"I am Brahman,\"\netc., the primary power of the words, __i.e.__ \" Denotation\"\n(__abhidh\u00e2__), could not express the unconditioned Brahman\ndestitute of all attributes; for Denotation rests upon  the ordinary\nconventional meaning, and how could this take in an idea so far\nremoved from ordinary experience?  Nor could it be the secondary\npower \"Indication\" (__laksha.n\u00e2__), as in the well- known instance\nof \"the herd-station on the Ganges,\" where the Ganges, by\n\"indication,\" means the shore and not the stream.  For \"indication\"\nmust be based on some connexion between the primary and the\nindicated secondary meaning; but how can that which is \"without a\nsecond\" be connected with anything?] consequently it must be the\nsecond power of a word, Indication.\n\n19. Yet if so, why should it be Indication? for this arises from\nsome association with the primary meaning; but with what can that\nsubstance be associated which is disconnected with everything and\nwithout a second?\n\n20. That power of a word is Indication, by which, when the primary\nmeaning is precluded, some other meaning is indicated in connexion\ntherewith, through some motive or through common currency; and its\ncauses are thus three [Footnote: I suppose that these are (1) the\nincompatibility of the primary sense; (2) the common currency of the\nsecondary meaning, __e.g.__ when \"Europe\" is used to imply its\ninhabitants in the phrase \"Europe makes war:\" (3) a motive, as in\n\"a herd-station on the Ganges,\" where \"Ganges\" is used instead of\n\"the bank of the Ganges,\"  in order to imply the coolness and purity\nof the spot].\n\n21. Now if there is no Denotation in a phrase, how can there arise\nany Indication?  First there should be some primary meaning\nprecluded, and then there may be the Indication of something else.\n\n22. Where there is no accepted Denotation, how can you there have\nIndication?  If there is no village, how can there be a boundary?--\nthere is no child without a father [Footnote: Cf. the Bengali proverb\n__m\u00e2th\u00e2 n\u00e2i t\u00e2r m\u00e2th\u00e2byath\u00e2__, \"he has no head and yet he has a\nheadache.\"]\n\n23. \"The lances enter, the swords, the bows and arrows,\"--here we\nhave Indication; for the sentence must suggest something else to\ncomplete itself, as there cannot be \"entrance\" in the case of an\ninanimate subject.\n\n24. \"A herd-station on the Ganges,\"--here we have the self-sacrifice\nof the primary to another meaning, since the Ganges, as being in the\nform of water, cannot be the site of a herd-station.\n\n25. In the example \"gh\u00ee is life\" there is produced the idea of\nsameness of form; in the example \"this is life\" there arises the\nidea of identity [Footnote: In the first ex. there is __\u0161uddha-\ns\u00e2ropa-laksha.n\u00e2__ or \"pure superimponent indication,\" in the second\nthere is __\u0161uddha-s\u00e2dhyavas\u00e2na-l.__ or \"pure introspeceptive\nindication,\" where the gh\u00ee is swallowed up in the \"life.\"  Most\nwriters, however, disallow __upach\u00e2ra__ in __\u0161uddha-laksha.n\u00e2__];\nbut the knowledge of the meaning of the sentences will be produced\nby a metaphor,--there is not brought about a real oneness.\n\n26. The doctrine of Identity is established with a desperate effort,\nand men have recourse to the power \"Indication\"; but there are three\nthings which should rise to our view,--the primary meaning, the\nindicated meaning, and their connexion [Footnote: He seems to imply\nthat each of these three requisites fails in the present case,--\nthere is no primary meaning, and still less a secondary, and there is\nno connexion with any other object.].\n\n27. There is here no Denotation from the absence of conventional\nagreement; there is no Indication from the absence of any reason [to\nestablish it]; by what reason, on the theory of M\u00e2y\u00e2, can Brahman be\never made known?\n\n28. He is described [Footnote: He now proceeds to declare his own\nopinions] in the Veda by the primary power of words [Denotation] as\nthe Maker of the Universe; and by Inference we establish the\nconclusion that all these things have a Maker.\n\n29. The Vedas are a proof, the \u0160m.ritis are a proof; there is a being\nto be proved and known there in many passages; it is the great\nPersonality which is to be made known by all the Vedas,--therefore it\nis this which the Veda takes as its subject.\n\n30. True verbal testimony produces knowledge even in regard to that\nwhich is absolutely non-existent,--then how much more in regard to\nBrahman the Lord, the maker of all that moves or is motionless!\n\n31. It is said, [Footnote: Taitt. Upanish. ii. 4.] \"Speech retires\ntherefrom together with the Mind,\"--but this is its explanation,--\ngive ear: Together with the Mind Speech makes Him its object, and\nthen retires, because His nature is not to be fathomed.\n\n32. \"Brahman is not to be made the object of mind or of words,\"\n[Footnote: Cf. the Ka.tha Up. vi. 12, \"The soul is not to be reached\nby speech nor by the mind nor by the eye.\"]--from this saying it is\nunderstood that he is only to be declared by Revelation, Revelation\nhas no faltering action [Footnote: For __skhaladgati__, cf.\n__K\u00e2vyaprak\u00e2\u0161a__, ii. 16.].\n\n33. \"He who is versed in the Word-Brahman attains to the highest\nBrahman,\" [Footnote: This line is quoted from \u0160ruti in the Maitri\nUpanishad, vi. 22.]--surely such words of inspired sages are not\nmistaken babble.\n\n34. Assuredly the conventional meaning of the words \"existent,\"\n\"thought,\" and \"joy\" applies to Brahman, just as the words \"pot,\"\n\"cloth,\" etc., refer to those particular objects.\n\n35. The perception of the conventional meaning of words is aroused\nby the dialogue of the orderer and the ordered; and afterwards by\ninsertion and omission the child becomes thoroughly skilled in the\nuse of the words. [Footnote: Cf. S\u00e2hityadarpa.na, ii. \"On the old\nman's saying, when giving directions to the middle-aged man,\" etc.\nThe S\u00e2hitya D. uses the terms __\u00e2v\u00e2poddh\u00e2rau__, the\nSiddh\u00e2ntamukt\u00e2val\u00ee (p. 80) uses __\u00e2v\u00e2podv\u00e2pan__].\n\n36. So through hearing the words of the teacher and repeated study\nof the \u0161\u00e2stras the conventional meaning of such words as Brahman,\netc., is assuredly produced in the pupil.\n\n37. This earth must surely have had a maker; for its having the\nnature of an effect is a sign, just as we see to be the case in\npots, etc.\n\n38. If it is established that the supreme Lord is the maker, then\nhis having a body follows as a matter of course [Footnote: This is\none of the tenets of R\u00e2m\u00e2nujas as well as P\u00fbr.napraj\u00f1as.]; for in\nall effects, as pots and the like, the maker is seen to have a body\nand not to be bodiless.\n\n39. [The objector urges] \"If the supreme Lord has a body, then he\nwill be like to beings such as we are; there cannot be a maker\nwithout an intermediate agency [Footnote: The __vy\u00e2p\u00e2ra__ or\nintermediate agency is defined as __taj-janyatve sati taj-janya-\njanako hi vy\u00e2p\u00e2ra.h__],--I see no difference whatever.\"\n\n40. But great is the difference which is declared to exist between\nthe Adorable Lord and men working with spades, sickles, ploughshares,\nand hands; these are helpless in the six waves [Footnote: Compare\nthe memorial line, __\u0160okamohau jar\u00e2m.rity\u00fb kshutpip\u00e2se\nsha.d\u00fbrmaya.h__.] (of human infirmity,) and wearied with the burden\nof labour,--He effects everything by a mere motion of his brow.\n\n41. The Master can make, not make [Footnote: With this curious use\nof __akartum__ (extending the analogy of such forms as __akurvan,\nak.ritv\u00e2__, etc.) cf. Theognis, 621: {Greek: __pas tis plo\u00fasion\n\u00e1ndpa t\u00edei at\u00edei d\u00e8 penixr\u00f3n__}. Cf. Shilleto, Cambridge Journ. of\nPhilology, 1876, p. 161.], and alter; hence one may learn that vast\nis the interval between the two.\n\n42. If the body is called the site of enjoyment, it is well known\nthat this definition will hold good (even in this highest case\n[Footnote: Could __loke__ mean that it will hold good \"of the world\"\nas his body?]),--there is nothing deficient but everything is present\nin the Lord's body [Footnote: Cf. \"Whose body nature is and God the\nsoul.\"], since He is the husband of Lakshm\u00ee.\n\n43. \"Every body is influenced by deserts,\"--if this universal law is\naccepted, then He who is the Maker of all must be impelled [to create\nthe world] by the deserts which dominate over beings like us\n[Footnote: __I.e.__ he creates the world to give their deserts to the\ndifferent souls.]\n\n44. \"Every body must be non-eternal,\"--this is a general law, yet\nstill \u00ce\u0161vara's body may be eternal; for earth is everywhere seen to\nbe non-eternal, while in the form of its atoms it is eternal.\n\n45. One must not say, \"why should the desert of one attach itself to\nanother?\"  For it was in consequence of the respective merits and\ndemerits of the elephant and the crocodile that the holder of the\ndiscus made all haste to interfere in the battle [Footnote: The\nobjector urges \"why should our good or evil deserts oblige God to\nact in a certain way?\"  He answers by referring to the well-known\nlegend given in the Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2.na, viii. ch. 2-4.  A certain\nking, named Indradyumna, became an elephant through Agastya's curse.\nOne day, while drinking in a lake, he was seized by a crocodile, and\nthe struggle lasted for a thousand years.  At last, in despair, he\nprayed to Vish.nu, who came down mounted on Garu.da and killed the\ncrocodile.  Thus we see that, although in one sense the deserts of one\nbeing cannot attach themselves to another, still they must cause\ncertain actions in another being, or it would be impossible that each\nshould receive its due reward or punishment.] \n\n46. It has been heard of old that all this universe proceeded from\nthe lotus of the navel of the Lord; hence is it established that be\nhas a body, for how can there be a navel without a body?\n\n47. The body of God is very pure,--to be enjoyed by all the senses,\nas being richly endowed with the six qualities [Footnote: These six\nqualities, according to the Commentator on the Bh\u00e2gavata P. i. 3. 36,\nare sovereignty, knowledge, glory, prosperity, dispassion, and\nvirtue; a different list is given in the Sarva Dar\u0161. S. p. 54, l. 22\n(but cf. p. 69, l. 18).  See also __infra__ in \u0161l. 95.],--and to be\ndiscovered by means of all the Vedas,--Gang\u00e2 verily is the water\nwherewith he washes his feet.\n\n48. Whenever by the influence of time there comes the increase of evil\nand the diminution of right, then the adorable Lord accomplishes the\npreservation of the good and the destruction of the wicked.\n\n49. The Lord is said to be twofold, as the Incarnation and He who\nbecomes incarnate; so too the souls are twofold, as divided into\nfaithful and faithless.\n\n50. Now some say that the personal soul is only the reflection of the\nSupreme; but their opinion does not at all hold, since it cannot be\nestablished.\n\n51. For how could there arise a reflection of that Infinite and\nstainless one? and how could an insentient [reflection] enjoy the pain\nand pleasure arising from the merit and demerit declared in the Veda?\n\n52. There may indeed be a reflection of that which is limited; but how\nshall there be one of Him whose attribute is infinity?\n\n53. R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, the foremost of the learned, condemned this theory of an\noriginal and its reflection; the fact that this doctrine is not\naccepted by the learned, will not make it seem more plausible.\n\n54. There is an eternal division between the two, from the words of\nthe Veda, \"two birds;\" [Footnote: Rig V. i. 164, 20, \"Two birds\nassociated together, two friends, take refuge in the same tree; one\nof them eats the sweet fig; the other, abstaining from food, merely\nlooks on.\"] from the mention there of \"two friends,\" how can there\nbe identity between them?\n\n55. I become Brahman, that is, I cease to have mundane existence\nthrough beholding the soul in Brahman; the result of this would be\nthe abolition of sorrow, etc., but in no way absolute Oneness.\n\n56. I become Brahman also through beholding Brahman in the soul\n[Footnote: Another reading is __brahma.ny \u00e2tmanir\u00eeksha.n\u00e2t__]; the\nresult would be the abolition of His being out of sight [Footnote:\n__I.e.__ it would be always __videre videntem__], but in no way\nOneness.\n\n57. It must not be said that by continued meditation with intent\nthought a man becomes Brahman; there will only enter into him a\nlittle merit; as we see indeed in the case of worms, bees, and the\nlike [Footnote: Cf. Hitopade\u0161a, Introd. \u0161l. 45.];\n\n58. By devotedly worshipping Br\u00e2hmans without ceasing, a \u0160\u00fbdra will\nnever become a Br\u00e2hman; there may enter into him a little merit, but\none of the \u0160\u00fbdra caste will never become a Br\u00e2hman.\n\n59. The venerable author of the Aphorisms himself established a\nduality when he spoke of the application of the terms \"object\" and\n\"agent\" [Footnote: In Ved\u00e2nta S. i. 2. 4, it is shown that certain\npassages in the Upanishads refer to Brahman and not the embodied\nsoul, \"because of the application therein of the terms object\nand agent;\" as __e.g.__ in the passage of the Chh\u00e2ndogya Upan. iii.\n14, \"I shall attain it when I have departed from hence.\"  These\nwords imply an agent who attains and also an object which is\nattained, __i.e.__ Brahman.  \u0160a\"nkara in his comment on i. 2. 11\nillustrates this by the passage in the Katha Upanishad iii. 1, \"The\ntwo, drinking the due reward from their works, in this world\nentered the cave, in the highest place of the supreme soul\" (sc.\nthe heart)]; and thus has it been explained by the author of the\ncommentary by quoting passages of the Veda which imply duality, as\nthat which says \"the two entered the cave.\"\n\n60. The soul is also shown to be different [from Brahman] by the\nevidence of \u0160m.riti [Footnote: Cf. Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras i. 2. 6, where\n\u0160a\"nkara quotes the passage from the Bhagavad G\u00eet\u00e2 (xviii. 61),\n\"The Lord of all beings abides in the region of the heart,--causing\nall beings to revolve by his illusion as though mounted on a\nmachine.\"]; thus their difference is proved to be essential.  If it\nwere not so, how could the Commentator have used such an expression\nas \"the worshipper\" and \"the worshipped\" [Footnote: He uses this\nvery expression __up\u00e2syop\u00e2sakabh\u00e2va__ in his Comment. on i. 2. 4.]?\n\n61. I am sometimes happy, sometimes miserable; He, the supreme Soul,\nis always essentially happy.  Such is the difference,--then how can\nthere be identity between these two different substances?\n\n62. He is eternally self-luminous and unobscured,-- intensely pure,\nthe one witness of the world; not so is the individual soul,--thus\na thunderbolt falls on the tree of the theory of Identity.\n\n63. For those who maintain the identity of the individual and supreme\nsoul, the hypothesis of a __dvandva compound__ [Footnote: __I.e.__ in\nthe word __j\u00eev\u00e2tm\u00e2nau__] is precluded; or they bring forward such\nwords as __d.rishadupala__ as parallel cases [Footnote: I suppose that\nthis means that the __dvandva__  compound __d.rishadupala__ has some\nanalogy to one like __j\u00eev\u00e2tm\u00e2nau__, which involves identity, as the\nupper and lower millstone form one instrument; but there (in\naccordance with P\u00e2.n. 2. 2. 34, __v\u00e2rtt.__) the less important word\nmeaning the upper and smaller stone (__upal\u00e2__) is placed last\n(cf. 2. 2. 31)]; the __dvandva__ is only consistent with \"difference,\"\nbut in no way with \"identity.\"\n\n64. Where identity is the meaning, there arises the __karmadh\u00e2raya__\ncompound,--for [such a __karmadh\u00e2raya__ as] __n\u00eelotpala__ \"the\nblue-lotus\" is used as implying that the two members of the compound\nrefer to the same subject [Footnote: But __j\u00eev\u00e2tm\u00e2nau__ is a\n__dvandva__, not a __karmadh\u00e2raya__ compound.]\n\n65. As there are many passages in \u0160ruti such as that which says\n\"food is Brahman,\" [Footnote: Brihad \u00c2ra.nyaka Upan. v. 12. 1.] so\ntoo this passage \"I am Brahman\" is to be understood as meaning\nworship [Footnote: __I.e.__ this is one of the modes of worshipping\nBrahman by meditating on him in some lower visible form, not as\nreally expressing his real nature.]\n\n66. The doctrine of Identity is not true; wherever it appears to be\ndeclared in \u0160ruti, all those passages are to be taken as only\nmeaning worship.\n\n67. There are many sentences in the ancient Veda which speak for\nnon-identity as also for identity; having expelled envy and discussed\nthe truth, let the wise declare that which each thinks wholesome.\n\n68. O soul, bewildered by a deceived opinion, drive far from thy\nmouth these words \"I am Brahman\"; how canst thou be That, O thou who\nart utterly at the mercy of fate, plunged as thou art in the great\nocean of mundane existence hard to be crossed!\n\n69. He who is the beloved of Lakshmi, the ambrosia-ocean, full of\nmanifest supreme joy; the water of whose feet is Gang\u00e2, worthy to be\nworshipped by Rudra and the other gods; who before creation created\nall instantaneously by a movement of his brow,--how canst thou say,\nO soul, \"I am He,\"--thou who art a poor beggar, not a king.\n\n70. O slow of mind, how canst thou say, I am He with whom are filled\nall the vast stores of this universe in its entirety?  Collect thy\nfaculties calmly in thy heart and consider thine own power; can a\nhost of fierce world-supporting elephants enter into the belly of a\ngnat?\n\n71. Whose art thou? whence art thou come? how is the course of this\nmundane bondage?  Ponder this matter in thy heart and forsake the\npath of the erring.  Say not \"I am He\"; but worship Hari continually\nin the relation of adorer and adored; by this thou mayst attain the\nhappy journey, but otherwise thou wilt assuredly fall.\n\n72. Great is the misery which thou hast experienced, O Soul, while\ndwelling in the womb in various births, and thou hast wandered again\nand again in heaven or in hell; this theory \"I am He\" is an error of\nthine,--worship thou Hari's lotus feet; thou art His worshipper, He\nis the adorable, for He is the lord of the three worlds.\n\n73. Renouncing the so-called theory of identity, forthwith devote\nthyself to duality, if there now dwells in thy heart a supreme\nfeeling of faith in Hari; and, having learned the doctrine in\nN\u00e2rada's Pa\u00f1char\u00e2tra and everywhere else, let all the hymns of the\nVaish.nava sacred books be thoroughly examined, as is truly for thy\ngood.\n\n74. By what foolish teacher hast thou been instructed, that thou\nutterest these words \"I am Brahman\"?  How art thou that being who is\ncontinually worshipped by Rudra and all the gods?  O fool, consider\nit and see aright.\n\n75. The wicked cannot understand the difference between the embodied\nand the Supreme Souls; the great reason for this is a mind possessed\nby an evil obstinacy in favour of the doctrine of Illusion; just as\nthe tongue of those who suffer from excess of bile cannot taste the\nsweetness of molasses, nor the eyes of those afflicted with gutta\nserena or jaundice see the whiteness of a shell.\n\n76. He by a particle of whose intellect thou, O Soul, hast been\nproduced the foremost of intelligent beings--say not, O knave, that\nthou art __He__; for who but the ingrate desires to seize the seat\nof his Master?\n\n77. A particle of intelligence has been deposited in thee by the\nsupreme Lord in His mercy,--it becomes thee not, O knave, to say\nthat therefore thou art God; just as if some evil-minded man had\nreceived elephants, horses, and infantry from the king and then set\nhis heart on seizing his kingdom.\n\n78. He under whose control is that mighty illusion which deceives\nthe three worlds, He is to be recognized as the Supreme Lord, the\nadorable, essentially thought, existence and joy; but he who is\nhimself always under her control like a camel drawn by a string\nthrough his nostrils, is to be recognized as the individual soul,--\nvast indeed is the difference between the two!\n\n79. Having studied the doctrines of the S\u00e2\"nkhya, Ka.n\u00e2da, and\nGautama, and the doctrine of Pata\u00f1jali, the doctrines of the\nM\u00eem\u00e2.ms\u00e2 and Bha.t.tabh\u00e2skara [Footnote: Colebrooke's Essays,\nvol i. p. 359.], --amidst all the six current systems,--let the wise\ntell the final conclusion if they can as to the real nature of the\nsupreme and the individual soul,--is it duality, or is it oneness,\nor is it again a oneness in duality?\n\n80. In five of the systems I have only heard peremptorily asserted\nin many places the difference between the supreme and the individual\nsouls; what is this that I hear asserted in the Ved\u00e2nta system?\n\"Plurality, unity, both,\"--this is a threefold marvel! [Footnote:\nThis is an attack on R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja's system, as opposed to that of\nP\u00fbr.napraj\u00f1a or Madhva, cf. Sarva-dar\u0161ana S. p. 52, l. 20, \"What is\nthe real truth?  The real truth is plurality, unity, and both. Thus\nunity is admitted in saying that Brahman alone subsists in all forms\nas all is its body; both unity and plurality are admitted in saying\nthat one only Brahman subsists under a plurality of forms, diverse\nas soul and non-soul; and plurality is admitted in saying that the\nessential natures of soul, non-soul, and the Lord are different and\nnot to be confounded.\"  This doctrine is opposed by the followers of\nMadhva, see __ibid.__, P\u00fbr.napraj\u00f1a-dar\u0161. p. 61, l. 11.]\n\n81. He who is the maker of all and the Lord of the world is\nindependent by reason of his essential independence; the individual\nsoul is notoriously dependent; how can they say then that these two\nare identical?\n\n82. There are various flavours in honey [existing distinct] through\nthe difference of the trees [from whose flowers it is produced];\nhow else could it remove the three-fold disorders? [Footnote:\n__I.e.__ those affecting the three \"humours\" of the body, __i.e.\nv\u00e2yu__ 'wind,' __pitta__ 'bile,' and __kapha__ 'phlegm.'  Certain\nflavours of the honey counteract one disorder and others another.\nThe Su\u0161ruta thus describes honey (vol. i. p. 185): \"When cooked it\nremoves the three-fold disorders, but when raw or sour it causes\nthem; when used in various applications it cures many disorders;\nand since it is composed of many different things it is an\nexcellent medium for mixing.  But as it consists of the juices of\nflowers which are mutually contrary in the action, potency, and\nqualities of their various ingredients, and it may happen that\npoisonous insects may be included, it is only good as a remedy for\ncold diseases.\"]  So the individual souls at the world's\ndissolution are absorbed in the Lord; but they do not become\nidentified with Him, for they are again separated at the next\ncreation.\n\n83. There is a difference between rivers and the sea, with their\nrespective sweet and salt water; so too God and the soul are\ndifferent and possessed of distinct attributes [Footnote: In\nallusion to Mu.n.d. Upan. iii. 2. 8.].\n\n84. Rivers, when joined to the sea from all sides, are not\nidentified with it nor yet do they appear to be separate; but from\nthe difference between salt water and sweet water [Footnote: Most\nof the MSS. and the Benares Pa.n.dit read __ksh\u00ee roda__; but the\nCalcutta ed. and one of the two MSS. in the Library of the Calcutta\nSanskrit College read __ksh\u00e2roda__, which seems preferable.  If we\nread __ksh\u00eeroda__, the line would require to be rendered, \"but from\nthe difference between milk mixed with water and pure water,\" or\nperhaps \"from the difference between the milk-ocean and the water-\nocean.\"] there must be a real difference between them.\n\n85. Others see not the difference when water is mixed with milk, but\nthe swan at once separates the milk and the water [Footnote: Cf.\n\u0160akunt. \u0161l. 155.]; so too when the souls are absorbed in the supreme\nBrahman, the Lord,--the faithful, who have received the Guru's words,\ncan at once draw a difference between them.\n\n86. Even when milk is mixed with milk and water with water, they do\nnot become absolutely identified, for they still retain their fixed\nmeasure as before; so, when the souls through intense contemplation\nare absorbed in the Supreme Spirit, they do not become identified\nwith Him; thus say the pure-minded saints.\n\n87. There are certain disputants, sunk in a sea of false logic,\naddicted to an evil way, filled with a hundred imaginations of idle\nbabble, deceived themselves and deceiving the world,--all that they\nsay, \"I am Brahman and all this visible universe also is Brahman,\"--\nis now shown clearly to be an empty desire.\n\n88. If I and all this universe were Brahman, then there would be an\nidentity between thee and me; then thy wealth, sons, and wife would\nbe mine, and mine would be thine, for there would be no distinction\nbetween us.\n\n89. And how then could there be injunction or prohibition, since all\nare one, and there is no distinction of caste?  If the doctrine of\nnon-duality be thus held to be established, then what offence has\nthe Buddhist committed?\n\n90. \"The Soul is different from the elements, the senses, the\ninternal organ, and primary matter, and also from that which is\ncalled the individual,\"--thus has it been declared of old by Kapila\nto his mother in the third book of the Bh\u00e2gavata [Footnote: Bh\u00e2g.\nP\u00fbr. iii. 28. 41.] (Pur\u00e2.na).\n\n91. Those who study the path pointed out by the teacher, resting\nupon a foundation of naught, and maintain with an empty\nunderstanding that all is void and that all the recognized deities\nare naught,--how can many words be uttered about them, for language\nfails in a topic of naught; naught indeed is their wisdom, and\ntheir fruit shall be also mostly naught.\n\n92. There are words uttered by Vy\u00e2sa in the Bh\u00e2rata condemning this\ndoctrine of the nothingness of all things [Footnote: The name\n__\u0161\u00fbnyav\u00e2da__ is generally applied to Buddhism; here it is applied by\nway of reproach to the Ved\u00e2nta, which is called in the Padma-pur\u00e2.na\n\"secret Buddhism\" (__prachchhanna.m  Bauddham__)]; \"their bodies are\ncomposed of the quality of darkness, and verily darkness shall be\ntheir end;\" [Footnote: Mah\u00e2bh. xii. 9690.]\n\n93. These words which were uttered of old by Kapila in the presence\nof the sage Sy\u00fbmara\u0161mi [Footnote: This dialogue occurs in Mah\u00e2bh. xii.\n9604, ff.], were afterwards recounted by Vy\u00e2sa in the Bh\u00e2.rata.\n\n94. This theory of theirs concerning a void of qualities in Him who\nis the ocean of qualities [Footnote: The R\u00e2m\u00e2nujas and the M\u00e2dhvas\ndeny that the Supreme Being is __nirgu.na__,--thus there is a\nquotation in the Sarva Dar\u0161ana S. p. 64. \"V\u00e2sudeva is the supreme\nBrahman, endowed with auspicious attributes\" (cf. p. 69, l. 18;\np. 73, l. 2)], --it is but like the blind hurrying of sheep after\nthe ewe that leads them!  Having made a separate commentary of their\nown on the S\u00fbtras they deceive those who follow their doctrine.\n\n95. All these qualities, sovereignty, creation, and the like,\neternally belong to the Supreme Lord; how then can He be \"without\nqualities\" who is thus \"possessed of qualities\"? he theory of a void\nof qualities is mere disputation.\n\n96. The adorable one possesses knowledge, volition, and creative\npower; how then can he be destitute of qualities? or, if he is\ndestitute of qualities, how can he be set forth by the Vedas? How\ncan the absence of qualities be predicated of the sea of qualities,\nand yet all remonstrance be silent?  Ponder it well in thine own\nmind, and then determine what is right.\n\n97. A substance without attributes, like the sky-flower, is not\nadmitted either in the Veda or in the world; if the knowledge of such\na thing were derived from the Veda, the Veda itself would then cease\nto be an authority.\n\n98. [The Ved\u00e2ntin may reply]  \"The bunch of Darbha grass [Footnote:\nThis is the __prastara__ or bundle of sacred grass, which plays an\nimportant part in the sacrificial ritual, cf. Taittir\u00eeya S. i. 7. 4,\n\"__yajam\u00e2na.h prastara.h,__\" where S\u00e2ya.na remarks, \"__yajam\u00e2navad\ny\u00e2gas\u00e2dhanatv\u00e2t prastare yajam\u00e2natvopach\u00e2ra.h.__\"  This description\nof the grass as the sacrificer is really only meant as metaphorical\npraise, since the actual attributes of the sacrificer are evidently\nabsent from the grass. (Cf. M\u00eem\u00e2.ms\u00e2 S\u00fbtras, i. 4. 23.)] is said to\nbe the sacrificer, as it is the means of performing the sacrifice;\n[as the Darbha grass is understood by this description,] even though\nthe attributes thus ascribed are not found in it, so is Brahman\nunderstood when we ascribe certain qualities [as 'truth,' etc., even\nthough these qualities are precluded in a being without qualities].\"\n\n99. [I answer] A thorough Ved\u00e2ntin like thee does not accept any\nwhere the existence of qualities or that which possesses qualities;\nbut if imagined qualities are done away with [by deeper insight],\nreal qualities are nowhere done away with [Footnote: Clearer insight\nabolishes imagined attributes, as __e. g.__ the supposed snake in\nthe rope; but real attributes remain untouched, and we hold\nBrahman's attributes to be real.--I read __ab\u00e2dha.h__ in I. 2.].\n\n100. If Brahman is understood to be destitute of qualities, then\n\"truth,\" etc., will not be applicable to Him; but, if so, there\narises a contradiction in such passages [of \u0160ruti] as \"he is the\ntruthful,\" etc. [Footnote: I do not know where this passage occurs,\nbut the kindred word __satyadharman__ is applied to several deities\nin the Rigveda.]\n\n101. When the existence of such a thing as a quality is admitted,\nwe can imagine it in something else [Footnote: The Ved\u00e2ntins hold\nthat nothing exists besides Brahman; and yet, although they thus\ndeny the existence of any other thing or quality, they hold that\ncertain qualities are imagined to exist in him, forgetting that\nonly one who has seen silver can imagine __rajatatva__ in nacre.];\nbut to imagine that nacre is silver, we must first know clearly\nwhat silver is.\n\n102. This universe is based on the soul as its site, being imagined\nin it by ignorance; some teachers would describe it as an illusory\nemanation [Footnote: It is a favourite doctrine of the Ved\u00e2nta that\nignorance, as being imagined by ignorance, is itself false.]; but\nthis is not a pleasing doctrine to me.\n\n103. It cannot be said that all this universe is false; since it is\nreally the plaything of Hari, who is eternally engaged in sport\n[Footnote: Manu, i. 80, \"There are numberless Manvantaras,\ncreations and destructions numberless; the being supremely exalted\nperforms all this, as in sport, again and again.\"]\n\n104. The external world is not like a dream; for in dreams there is\nsleep and a host of imperfections; what we eat or drink in dreams\ngives us no enjoyment, but these things are enjoyable in our waking\nstate.\n\n105. If all that is seen were false, then how could it produce\neffects?  The carrying of water in a jar is not false; all we can\nsay is that it is transient.\n\n106. The idea that all this world is false, is opposed to\nexperience; for of what use would be all the expiations for sin,\nprescribed in the law-books?  Why are these thieves to be punished\neven by the king?  The upholder of the doctrine of M\u00e2y\u00e2 can assert\nanything on his oath, but all is false.\n\n107. Thou canst not say that the visible world is only like the\ntransitory enjoyment of one who smells a wreath of flowers; however\nclosely it is scanned, there is no overpowering evidence of its\nunreality [to preclude the presumption founded on experience]; it\ncontinually manifests itself to us as eternal in its stream of\nsuccessive events.\n\n108. This world is not false but it is rendered true by Vish.nu's\nprotection [Footnote: Or this may mean \"since Vish.nu has accepted\nit as the instrument of his sport.\"]; thou art made pure by the\nknowledge of Him, as all minerals shine as gold [when brought in\ncontact with the philosopher's stone].\n\n109. Dispassion and enjoyment stand equally aloof as disinterested\nspectators and are lost in faith; the partaking of the consecrated\nfood is in no sense to be called an \"enjoyment,\"--it is itself an\nact of faith [Footnote: \"The __pras\u00e2da__ is any article of food\nthat has been consecrated by previous presentation to an idol,\nafter which it is distributed among the worshippers on the spot, or\nsent to persons of consequence at their own houses\" (Wilson's Works,\nvol. 1. p. 116). Cf. also the legend in p. 134, where \"R\u00e2m D\u00e2s at\nnoon halted and bathed the god, and prepared his food, and presented\nit, and then took the __pras\u00e2d__, and put it in a vessel, and fed\nupon what remained.\"  (The food consecrated at the temple of Puri is\nespecially called the __Mah\u00e2pras\u00e2da.__) There is a distich current\namong the Bh\u00e2ktas:].\n\n110. By intense devotion to his object the man of the world will\nbecome the devotee of enjoyment, and by the absence of all enjoyment\na man becomes absolutely dispassionate; this is the real truth\n[Footnote: But the true devotee is neither devoted to enjoyment nor\nto dispassion, is equally apart from and superior to both.\n\n/*\n  __j\u00f1\u00e2na.m nir\u00e2k.ritir, Brahma tyaktv\u00e2 bhakty\u00e2 bhaj\u00e2chyutam__ |\n  __yatra pras\u00e2dasev\u00e2pi bhaktir anyasya k\u00e2 kath\u00e2__ ||\n*/\n\n\"Knowledge is rejection; abandon Brahman and worship Vish.nu.  Here\nwhere even the homage paid to the __pras\u00e2da__ counts as faith, what\nneed to mention anything besides?\"  Thus the devotee does everything\nby faith, and dispassion and enjoyment are to him alike swallowed up\nin faith].\n\n111. By association with the good and by repeatedly listening to the\nstory of K.rish.na's sports there has arisen in the lake of the mind\nthe great wave of pure faith and pure affection; abandoning the\ndoctrine of unity and without hesitation embracing that of duality,\nwe worship with our whole heart the lotus-feet of the beloved of\nLakshm\u00ee.\n\n112. There is a rule in the things of the world, that he who is near\nthe king may be called the king; so too in the things of Brahman and\nthe soul must we understand the various sacred texts [which at first\nsight appear to identify them].\n\n113. He in whom the universe,--sun, moon, and the rest, with the three\nworlds,--rose into being,--in whom it all abides until it perishes,--\nand in whom, each in its own time, it is all finally dissolved,--He,\nthe Lord, whom, being beyond all qualities [Footnote: Cf. Sarva D. S.\np. 52, l. 8 infr.  \"The statements that the Supreme Spirit is devoid\nof qualities, are intended to deny his possession of phenomenal\nqualities (such as liking, disliking, etc.).\"], even Brahman himself\ncannot declare in the Vedas,--why, O teacher, dost thou teach this\nmiserable me the words \"I am He\"?\n\n114. He in whom the storehouse of the universe with all its creatures\ngreat and small, was all contained like a line of insects drowned in\na ripe fruit of the glomerous fig-tree,--in whom it abides until the\nfinal destruction,--and in whom it is eventually dissolved,--Ah! how\ncan there come from my mouth, O teacher, these words \"I am He\"?\n\n115. Him, the Supreme Lord, by whose compassion even the dumb becomes\neloquent, the lame in a moment obtains strength to leap mountains,\nand even the man blind from his birth receives eyes beautiful like\ntwo lotuses,--or what still greater marvel shall I add?--Him I\nworship, the moon-faced son of Nanda, the philosopher's stone of the\nfaithful.\n\n116. Boundless is time, bounteous the earth, and great is the family\nof the devout worshippers of Vish.nu; somebody will be found at some\ntime or other on the earth who will appreciate my merits [Footnote:\nCf. the \u0161loka in the prologue of the M\u00e2lat\u00eem\u00e2dhava.]\n\n117. Having studied under my preceptor N\u00e2r\u00e2ya.na, the best of\nteachers, his book, which bears the title of \"The Ornament of\nFaith,\"--having read it with all its supplements and appendices, and\nby his kindness to his faithful disciples having mastered all its\nmysteries,--and having become a receptacle of faith myself, I have\nnow composed according to my ability this century of stanzas, a\nnecklace of pearls of good doctrine, which have for their subject\nthe distinction of the individual Soul and Brahman.\n\n118. If we have uttered through inadvertence what is wrong, may the\nintelligent, observing it, correct all the errors; the feet of the\ntraveller do sometimes stumble, and sometimes the speaker speaks\nthrough bewilderment what is incompatible.\n\n119. In a poem strung of all excellences the mean man hunts for\nfaults and never an excellence; in a palace all compact of jewels\nit is the ant that will see a flaw.\n\n120. Let those who are envious and bereft of sense, detect a fault\nif they will; but let the connoisseurs count the merits; they who\nbehold the merits and not the faults,--these are the good, these\ngive the highest satisfaction.\n\n121. Let this work of the poet P\u00fbr.n\u00e2nanda be read and be heard,\nwhich is devoted to proving the difference of the individual soul\nfrom the Supreme,--which is excellent with its sentences that\ndistinguish truth from falsehood, and is approved by the devotees\nof Vish.nu,--based on the doctrine of Madhva, and pleasing with a\ncomposition full of sweet words,--O ye best of the worshippers of\nBhagavat, if faith be desired in your minds.\n\n122. On the neck of the faithful may this Tattvamukt\u00e2val\u00ee\n[Footnote: Or \"the necklace of the pearls of truth.\"] abide for\never,--whose beauty is increased by the apt arrangement of sweet\nand soft words but which is free from rhetorical ornaments,--\nbeautiful with a profusion of sentences sweet like milk, and with\nits parts all bright and elegant,--a special source of delight to\nthe intelligent,--charming with a host of excellences and devoid\nof even the trace of a fault.\n\n\n\n\nTattva-muktav\u00e2l\u00ee by P\u00fbr.n\u00e2nanda Chakravartin","title":"The Tattva-Muktavali","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":8052}