Similar to the obvious means, the means prescribed in the scriptures (vedas) are also ineffective as they are linked with impurity, decay and excess. The means contrary to both, derived from the discriminatory knowledge of the Manifest, Unmanifest and the Knower (soul/Purusha), are superior. 

That one (the perceptible means) is beheld joined to excess loss and impurity, indeed, that one is known from the tradition. The contrary should be better based on the discernment of the knowledge of the manifest and unmanifest.

The revealed (or scriptural, means of removing the torment) are like the perceptible (— i.e., ultimately ineffective), for they are connected with impurity destruction and excess; a superior method, different from both, is the (discriminative) knowledge of the manifest (vyakta), the unmanifest (avyakta} and the knowing one (or knower — i.e., purusa).

.

Similar to the obvious means, the means prescribed in the scriptures (vedas) are also ineffective as they are linked with impurity, decay and excess. The means contrary to both, derived from the discriminatory knowledge of the Manifest, Unmanifest and the Knower (soul/Purusha), are superior.

Since one is struck by the threefold misery, an inquiry into the means of terminating it is to be made. If it is said that such an inquiry is superfluous in as much as the means are seen and known, we reply, no, for these means do not secure absolute and final relief.

The Gaudapāda Bhāshya

If inquiry is to be made into means other than the evident ones, even then, no, since the means revealed by the scriptures are the removers of the tbreefold misery. Anusravati is that what one successively hears i. e. anusrava and revealed in that anusrava, scriptures, is the anusravika, the scriptural. That is established from the Veda. As it is said: “We drank the Soma and have become immortal. We reached the Light and have known the gods. What harm, indeed, can the enemy inflict on us ? How can the mortal decay affect the immortal? Once upon a time there was a discussion among the gods, Indra and others, as to ‘how did we become immortal’ and having thought over, they decided: because we have drunk Soma, we b1ve become immortal. Further, we have reached the Light, we have obtained the heaven. \J..Te have known the gods, the divine. This being the case, certainly what can the enemy do to us. Vlhat can the mortal decay do to the immortal ? Dhurti means old age or injury-what can it do, the mortal to the immorcal ? Further, in the Vedas is promised the final fruit through the slaughter of the animals. ‘ He con­quers all the worlds, goes beyond death, goes beyond sin, goes beyond the sin of the murder of a brahmin-hewho performs the Asvamedha sacrifice’. When the final and certain means has been given in the Vedas, the inquiry to know the means is meaningless -if this be the view, then is to be said:­ No. ‘We explain. The means revealed in the scriptures are like the evident ones, similar to the evident, hence like it. Which is the means revealed in the scriptures? Why is it like the evident ? Because it is linked with impurity, destruction and inequality. It is linked with impurity through the slaughter of the animals. It is said : ‘According to the scriptural advice, in the Asvamedha, at midday, are killed six hundred minus three animals. ‘ Even if the Dbarma is revealed and laid down by the Srutis and the Smi:tis, yet on account of the mixture, miscellaneous character, it is linked with impurity. Further, ‘Many thousands of Indras and other gods have passed away in successive ages, overcome by time; for time is hard to overcome’. In this way it is open

to destruction, since the gods along with Indra have passed away. Again it is Jinked with inequality on account of superiority. At the sight of superiority in one, the other feels pain. Thus, the revealed means are like the evident ones. One may ask then which is the better? To this. is to be said:

one different from them both; different from the evident ones and the revealed ones, is the better, more praiseworthy; since, it is not connected with impurity, destruction and inequality. What is its nature, how is it to be acquired? From the right knowledge of the Manifest, the Unmanifest and the Knower. Of these, the Manifest are the Mahat and the rest: Intellect, ego, the five subtle elements, the eleven organs, the five gross elements. The Unmanifest is the Nature. The Knower is the Spirit. These are the twenty-five principles which are described as the Manifest, Unmanifest and the Knower. On account of their knowledge it is said to be better; it was said ‘the knower of the twenty-five principles etc.’

Tattva–kaumudi of Vācaspatimiśra:

Anusrava is Veda because it is heard by the disciple follow- ing the Guru’s utterance; that is to say, it is only memorised (by the disciple) and not written down (ie created) by any one (like the Mahabharata). Thus Anusravika is that which is known (from the Guru in the class). Though it is Vedic, the host of ritualistic means prescribed therein are similar to the obvious remedies as both the means are equally incapable of removing the three-fold pain absolutely or permanently. Though anusravika is the common denotation (for both the Karma kāṇda and the Jñāna kända), it ought to be taken here as implying only the ritualistic section of the Vedas. The Śruti also declares: “Atman ought to be known, realised and discriminated from the Prakṛti (Br. Up.) He (the Atmavit) does not return, he does not return (to this world).” (Ch.Up.8-15).

Reasons for the above declaration are given: It (the scriptural means) is attended with impurity, decay and excess. It is impure because sacrifices like soma yajña etc are perfored by the sacrifice of animals and destruction of corn etc. Bhagavan Pañcasikhācārya says: It (the sacrifice of animals etc) is slightly mixed (with impurity), remediable and bearable. Svalpaḥ-sankaraḥ means the admixture of the slight sin, productive of evil, caused by the slaughter of animals etc with the principal merit born of the performance of sacrifices like Jyotistoma etc. By Saparihāra is meant that the evil is removable by certain expiatory rites. But, if due to inadvertance, expiatory rites are not observed, then, it (ie the demerit caused by the slaughter of animals) also bears fruit at the time of the fruition of the principal karma (ie merit). As long as these evil effects are produced so long they are borne with patience;hence it is qualified as sapratyavamarṣa. Adepts who are immersed in the huge lakes of heavenly nectar obtained by the performance of virtuous deeds bear patiently the spark of the fire of misery brought about by sin (caused by animal slaughter etc).

It cannot be said that the general injunction, ‘One should not injure any living being,’ sets aside the specific injunction, ‘one should kill the animal dedicated to the Agni-soma sacrifice,’ because of the absence of mutual contradiction. It is only when there is mutual contradiction, the weaker gets superseded by the stronger. Here there is no such contradiction because they deal with two quite different subjects. For, the prohibitory injunction ‘do not kill’ only declares that killing produces sin (and causes pain); but it does not do away with the fact of its being necessary for the completion of the sacrifice. The sentence: ‘kill the animal meant for Agni-soma‘ only declares the necessity of animal slaughter in the performance of sacrifice; it does not suggest the absence of evil consequences arising from killing of animals. If it did so, there will be a split in the sentence to the effect that (a) killing is helpful in performing sacrifice and (b) it does not produce sin. Nor is there any contradiction between its being the cause of sin (arising from the slaughter of the animal in the sacrifice) and its (of animal slaughter) being helpful in the performance of sacrifice. Animal slaughter causes sin in man while at the same time it also helps man in the performance of the sacrifice.

Though the terms decay and excess (used in the above Kārikā) really relate to the effect, here they are attributed to the means. This quality of decay in heaven is inferred as it is a positive entity and a product. Further, it is said that sacrifices like Jyotistoma are the means of attaining mere heaven, whereas sacrifices like Vajapeya etc lead one to self sovereignty. This inequality in the result is what constitutes excess spoken of (in the Kärikā). Verily, the superior prosperity of one man makes another of lesser prosperity sad!

Immortality denoted in the passage ‘We drank soma and became immortal’ indicates long durability. It is said elsewhere: “Verily, immortality is the durability extending till the final dissolution of all the elements (ie of the entire universe).’ Hence, the Śruti declares: ‘Neither by deeds nor by progeny nor by wealth but by renunciation alone they attained immortality; that which the hermits enter is laid beyond the heavens and yet it shines brilliantly in the heart’ (M.N.Up.12-14); and also, ‘Sages with children and desiring wealth got only death (as reward) by actions while those other sages who were wise attained immortality which is beyond all actions.’

With all this in view, it is said: the means contrary to them (to both and proceeding from the Discriminative Knowledge of the Manifest, the Unmanifest, and the Spirit) is preferable. Therefore, that which is contrary to the Vedic means of alleviating pain, such as drinking of soma etc which are impure and which bring about results that lack permanency and equality, is the pure means which, unmixed with evil (on account of animal slaughter) etc brings about permanent and most superior (unsurpassed) results. (This is clear from) the often repeated declarations of the Śruti that a person of Discriminative Knowledge never returns to metempsychosis. Now, it is not proper to say that this result (of knowledge) is impermanent inasmuch as it is a caused entity; because, such arguments hold good only if the effect is a positive entity; in the present case, however, removal of pain which though an effect, is a negative entity and is therefore otherwise. Nor can it produce some other pain, because, no effect can take place when the cause itself becomes defunct, for, causal activity lasts only till such time as the attainment of Discriminative Knowledge. And this will be explained later on (in Kärikā No.66).

The literal meaning of the words of the Kārikā is this: The means of destroying pain in the form of immediate Discriminative Knowledge of the Spirit as different from Matter, is contrary to the Vedic means that are capable of removing pain, and hence it is preferable. The Vedic means also are good inasmuch as they are prescribed by the Veda and as such capable of alleviating pain to a certain extent. The Discriminative Knowledge of the Spirit as distinct from Matter is also good; of these two excellent means, the Discriminative Knowledge of the Spirit that is quite distinct from Matter, is superior.

Question: When indeed does this (knowledge) arise?

Answer: From the right knowledge of the Manifested, the Unmanifested and the Cogniser. The knowledge of the Mani- fested precedes the knowledge of the Unmanifested which is the cause of the former; and from the fact of these existing for another’s purpose, the knowledge of Puruşa is gained. Thus it is seen that these three are mentioned in the order of precedence of the knowledge thereof. The meaning of all this is that the know-ledge of the Spirit as distinct from Matter is gained first by having heard with discrimination the real nature of the Manifested etc from the Śruti (Vedas), Smrti (Canonical texts), Ithihasa (historical accounts) and Purāņas (mythology); then, by duly having established the same through scientific reasoning, and finally by absorbing that knowledge into oneself by earnest and uninterrupted contemplation for a long time. It is explained thus (in Karika-64): ‘Thus, from the practice of Truth, is produced the wisdom in the form: ‘I am not, naught is mine, and not ‘I’, which is complete and pure on account of the absence of error and which is absolute.’

Having thus first established the fact of the usefulness of the scientific enquiry to the enquirer, the author, with a view to commence the work, sets down briefly the import of the system with a view to focusing the attention of the enquirer: