Copyright by Robert Alan Goodding 2002

The Treatise on Liberation-in-Life Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of The Jvanmuktiviveka of Vidyraya

by Robert Alan Goodding, M.A.

Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin May, 2002

DedicationTo all my teachers.

yas tu bodhitam api tattva na samyag budhyate, ya ca vismarati, tayor ubhayo sdhusagama evopya. sdhavo hi puna punar bodhayanti smrayanti ca. [JMV 3.2.10]

AcknowledgmentsAfter years of work it is at last time to give proper thanks to all those who have helped me carry out this dissertation. I must first recognize those who were directly involved and without whom I could never have begun to undertake the work of a critical edition and translation of a Sanskrit text. I thank my advisor Dr. Patrick Olivelle for sharing his vast knowledge and understanding, high standards, and tireless workmanship that I have tried to live up to over the years. It is a great honor to be his student at this time during his extraodinarily productive career. I also wish to recognize Dr. K. S. Arjunwadkar of Pune, India who read with me daily for a few months while I was in India and who always gave me exhaustive answers to my questions about the text and my translations. Those of us learning Sanskrit today will sorely miss the passing of his generation who grew up with the values of the old living tradition in India where learning is priceless yet is paid for with the total commitment of one's life. I must thank the others who were also directly or indirectly involved in my formation as a scholar such as my committee members Professors Cynthia Talbot, Joel Brereton, Andrew Fort, Richard Larivieve. I also thank Professors John Turner, Paul Olson, and Gregory Schopen who gave confirmation to my basic insights and inspired me to achieve more. The various directors and staff members of the archives I visited in India during 1997-1998 deserve a special recognition. The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute and the nandarama Sansth of Pune provided me with congenial places to study and permitted me access to their libraries and manuscript collections. The

v

Oriental Institute of Baroda, the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library of Madras and the Saraswati Mahal Library in Tanjavur allowed me access to their important Jvanmuktiviveka manuscripts. My special thanks also goes to Mrs. Nirmala Purandare of Pune for letting me stay at her guestroom at the Vanasthali Rural Development Centre. I must also thank the Fulbright Foundation for awarding me the support that made my research in India possible. Of all my friends and supporters who have stood with me and given positive inspiration over the years during my various pursuits, I wish, in no particular order, to recognize some of my fellow "seekers of pearls in the manure." At different points along the way, my friends Kim Wheeler, Russell Smith, Kevin Roberts, Joe and Karuna Nicols, John Skrovan, Monte Page, Ingrid Olson and many others touched my life and helped me understand essential things about our journey. I must thank all of my friends who are current and former fellow students whose intelligence, wit, and seriousness created a good atmosphere in which to carry out our studies. In this regard I mention, again in no particular order, Lance Ashdown, David McMahan, Larry Short, Steven Lindquist, Mark McClish, Jarrod Whitaker, Karline McClain, Kristen Rudisill, Gardner Harris, John Nemec, Laura Bueck, Dave Brick, Lisa Owen, Anna Shtutina, Don Davis, Parimal Patil, and Sarah Green. Special thanks goes to Rosemary Wetherold for her excellent copy-editing. Lastly I would like to thank my family for supporting my pursuits during these many years at difficult times when we all need love and acceptance the most.

vi

The Treatise on Liberation-in-Life Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of The Jvanmuktiviveka of Vidyraya

Publication No. ________

Robert Alan Goodding, Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin, 2002

Supervisor: J. Patrick Olivelle

The Jvanmuktiviveka or "The Treatise on Liberation-in-Life," is the only work in its period to specifically address one of the central issues in Hinduism: is liberation reserved for the world-renouncing religious elite, or is it attainable by everyone through devotion and organized ritual worship in the communal tradition? The work was composed c. 1380 CE by the Brahmin scholar Vidyraya when he was the pontiff of the geri monastery, which still endures today. This dissertation is a new edition of the Sanskrit text based on previously unused manuscript evidence and a new annotated English translation. The introduction is a study of some historical and philosophical problems in the Jvanmuktiviveka. Historians of the

vii

twentieth century long debated Vidyraya's identity and his political activity in the founding of the Vijayanagara kingdom in fourteenth century South India. The position taken here minimizes his political role and explores his possible role in the internal debates of medieval Vednta philosophy between Advaita and Viidvaita, thus presenting a historical context for the Jvanmuktiviveka. In this text, Vidyraya takes the classical Advaita Vedanta position that internal knowledge of the Self (tman) as Brahman and renunciation of social and ritual conventions lead to liberation, and that liberation can be achieved in an individual's own lifetime (jvanmukti). Tension had existed between the individual renunciant and the mainstream householder community in India for centuries. In medieval India this tension became focused into philosophical positions which resulted in lively debate. Vidyraya attempted a novel solution to problems internal to Advaita and resolved this tension. The knowledge of Self as equivalent to Brahman in classical Advaita philosophy is considered insufficient to completely root out operative action which causes future births. Liberation also requires a lifelong commitment to the Yogic practices "eradication of latent tendencies" and "elimination of the mind." Vidyraya preserved the possibility of liberation in this lifetime, while also not disturbing the conventional religious social order who could see the virtues of the paramahasa yogin following Vidyraya's teaching. This paramahasa yogin does not compromise his position but remains an ascetic outside of, while still recognized by, the householder society.

viii

Table of ContentsAbbreviations ......................................................................................................... xv INTRODUCTION Introduction Part One: The Style and Content of the Jvanmuktiviveka and its Historical Context 1. General .................................................................................................... 1 2. Style, Content, and Structure of the Jvanmuktiviveka ........................... 3 3. The Authorship of the Jvanmuktiviveka ................................................ 6 4. Controversy over Vijayanagara and Vidyranya ..................................... 9 5. Revised Views of Vidyraya's Career ..................................................12 6. The Jvanmuktiviveka in Context .......................................................... 19 Introduction Part Two: The Means of Liberation according to the Jvanmuktiviveka 1. The Problem of Operative Action ......................................................... 29 2. The Knowledge of Truth ....................................................................... 39 3. Eradication of Latent Tendencies .......................................................... 46 4. The Elimination of the Mind ................................................................. 55 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 66 TRANSLATION Chapter One: The Authoritative Basis for Liberation-in-Life 1.0 Benediction ............................................................................................ 71 1.1 The Renunciation-for-Knowledge ......................................................... 72 ix

1.2 The Renunciation-of-the-Knower .......................................................... 74 1.3 The Nature of Liberation-in-Life ........................................................... 82 1.4 The Characteristics of Liberation-in-Life .............................................. 88 1.5 Bodiless-Liberation ............................................................................... 94 1.6 One Steady-in-Wisdom ......................................................................... 95 1.7 The Devotee-of-the-Lord .................................................................... 101 1.8 One Who Has Transcended-the-Qualities ........................................... 102 1.9 The Brhmaa ...................................................................................... 104 1.10 One Beyond-Castes-and-Orders .................................................... 110

Chapter Two: The Eradication of Latent Tendencies 2.1 The Mutual Causality of the Means of Liberation-in-Life .................. 117 2.2 Negative and Positive Statements of the Three Pairs of Means .......... 118 2.3 The Principal and Subsidiary Relation of the Three Means ................ 122 2.4 Pure and Impure Latent Tendencies .................................................... 135 2.5 The Nature of the Mind and The Elimination of the Mind .................. 148 2.6 The Way Latent Tendencies are Eradicated ........................................ 152 2.7 The Practice of Pure Latent Tendencies .............................................. 154 2.8 The Practice of Discernment ............................................................... 158 2.9 The Continuance of Impure Latent Tendencies ................................... 159 2.10 The Remedy for Impure Latent Tendencies through Discernment ....163 2.11 The Latent Tendency of Pure Consciousness .....................................168 Chapter Three: The Elimination of the Mind 3.1 The Necessity of Elimination of the Mind .......................................... 182 x

3.2 The Methods for the Mind's Dissolution ............................................. 184 3.3 The Yogas of Posture and Diet ............................................................ 187 3.4 The Yoga of Breath-Control ................................................................ 189 3.5 Enstasis and the Eight Limbs of Yoga ................................................. 195 3.6 Enstasis of Suppression ....................................................................... 202 3.7 The Four Stages of Control; Control of Speech in Mind .................... 206 3.8 Control of the Mind in the Knowing Self ........................................... 208 3.9 Control in the Great Self and in the Tranquil Self ............................... 211 3.10 The Enstases with and without Conceptualization ............................ 214 3.11 The Practice of Yoga ......................................................................... 225 3.12 The Elimination of the Mind with Form ........................................... 231 Chapter Four: The Purpose in Attaining One's True Nature 4.1 Safeguarding of Knowledge ............................................................... 237 4.2 Austerity ............................................................................................. 245 4.3 Absence of Opposition ....................................................................... 250 4.4 Elimination of Suffering and the Manifestation of Bliss .................... 252 4.5 The Master Yogin and the Knower of Truth ...................................... 254 Chapter Five: The Renunciation-of-the-Knower 5.1 The Path of the Paramahasa Yogins ................................................ 258 5.2 The Principal Rule of the Paramahasa Yogin .................................. 267 5.3 The Paramahasa Yogin's Staff of Knowledge ................................. 276 5.4 The Conduct of the Paramahasa Yogin ........................................... 279

xi

TEXT Introduction to the Critical Edition ................................................................... 289 prathama jvanmuktipramaprakaraam 1.0 magalacranam .................................................................................. 298 1.1 vividisanysa ............................................................................... 299 1.2 vidvatsanysa....................................................................................301 1.3 jvanmuktisvarpa............................................................................. 307 1.4 jvanmuktilakana...............................................................................312 1.5 videhamuktilakaa .......................................................................... 316 1.6 sthitapraja ......................................................................................... 317 1.7 bhagavadbhakta ................................................................................. 322 1.8 gutta .............................................................................................. 323 1.9 brhmaa ............................................................................................. 324 1.10 ativarram ..................................................................................... 329 dvitya vsankayaprakaraa 2.1 jvanmuktisdhann parasparakraatvam .................................... 332 2.2 trisdhanadvandvn anvayavyatireka .......................................... 333 2.3 trisdhann pradhnopasarjanatvm .............................................. 335 2.4 uddhsuddhavsan ........................................................................... 345 2.5 manasa svarpa manona ca ....................................................... 356 2.6 vsankayaprakra ........................................................................... 360 2.7 ubhavsanbhysa ............................................................................ 361 2.8 vivekbhysa ..................................................................................... 365 xii

2.9 malinavsannuvtti ........................................................................... 366 2.10 malinavsann vivekena pratkra .............................................. 369 2.11 cinmtravsan .................................................................................. 374 tritya manonaprakaraa 3.1 manonasya avayakatvam ................................................................ 379 3.2 manovilayaheto yuktaya .................................................................. 380 3.3 sananayog ................................................................................... 383 3.4 prymayoga .................................................................................. 385 3.5 samdhir agayoga ca .................................................................... 390 3.6 nirodhasamdhi .................................................................................. 396 3.7 catasra bhmik. manasi vaniyama ............................................. 400 3.8 jntmani manoniyama .................................................................... 401 3.9 mahtmani nttmani ca niyama ...................................................... 404 3.10 saprajtsaprajtayo svarpa sdhana ca .......................... 406 3.11 yogbhysa ...................................................................................... 414 3.12 sarpo manona .............................................................................. 420 caturtha svarpasiddhiprayojanaprakaraam 4.1 jnarak ............................................................................................ 422 4.2 tapas ..................................................................................................... 431 4.3 visavdbhva ................................................................................. 433 4.4 dukhana sukhvirbhva ca .......................................................... 435 4.5 yogvaras tattvavic ca ......................................................................... 437

xiii

pacama vidvatsanysaprakaraam 5.1 yogin parahasn marga ......................................................... 440 5.2 yogina paramahasasya mukya kalpa .......................................... 447 5.3 yogina paramahasasya jnadaa ............................................... 454 5.4 yogina paramahasasya cary .......................................................... 456 Appendix One: Index of Sources ........................................................................ 464 Appendix Two: Index of Subjects ...................................................................... 468 Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 497 Vita ........................................................................................................................ 503

xiv

AbbreviationsAdyar Jvanmuktiviveka (Liberation in Life) of Vidyranya. Ed. and tr. Pandit S. Subramanya Sastri and T. R. Srinivasa Ayyangar. Adyar Library General Series 6. (1978). Aitareya Brhmaa ed. Satyavrata Samasrami. (1895-1898). Aitareya rayaka, ed. Keith (1909). Amtabindu Upaniad in Yoga Upaniads ed. Mahadeva str (1983). Amtanada Upaniad in Yoga Upaniads ed. Mahadeva str (1983). nandrama Sanskrit Series. Also refers to nSS, 20. Jvanmuktiviveka. Ed. Vasudeva Laxmaa Sharma Paakara (1978). runi Upaniad in Schrader (1912). Bhagavad Gt ed. Joshi, nSS 34, (1981). Bhaviya Mahpura ed. Sharma (1984). Bhgavata Pura ed. Sharma (1987). Brahma Stras ed. str (1996) Brahma Stra Bhya ed. str (1996) Bhadrayaka Upaniad eds. Limaye and Vaidekar (1958). Bhadraya Upaniad Bhya Vrttika ed. Subrahmanya Sastri (1982). Bhaspati Smti ed. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Gaekwad Oriental Series 85, (1941). Brahma Upaniad in Schrader. Chndogya Upaniad eds. Limaye and Vaidekar (1958). Dakasmti in SS. Ex conjectura; out of conjecture. Gaudapdya Krik ed. Abajisharma, nSS 10 (1984). xv

AitB Ait AmbU AmnU nSS rU BhG BhMP BhP BS BSBh BU BBhV BS BU ChU DSm ex. conj. GK

HDh U JdU JU JIP KaiU KauU KU KT Kha KU LVS LYV MBh MDh MNU MtrU MuU MukU NPU NkS NPS NpU

P. V. Kane History of Dharmastra (1977-1997). Upaniad eds. Limaye and Vaidekar (1958). Jbladarana Upaniad in Upaniatsagraha ed. str (1980). Jbla Upaniad in Schrader (1912). Journal of Indian Philosophy Kaivalya Upaniad in Upaniatsagraha, ed. str (1980). Kautaki Upaniad eds. Limaye and Vaidekar (1958). Kaha Upaniad eds. Limaye and Vaidekar (1958). Kulrava Tantra ed. Vidyaratna (1965). Khaaakhaakhdya ed. Dravida str (1904-1914). Kurika Upaniad in Upaniatsagraha ed. str (1980). Laghu-Viu Smti in SS. Laghu-Yogavsiha ed. Paakara (1985). Mahbhrata ed. V. S. Sukthankar et al. (1933-1959). Manava Dharmastra ed. Jolly (1993). Mahnryaa Upaniad ed. Jean Varenne (1960). Maitryani Upaniad eds. Limaye and Vaidekar (1958). Muaka Upaniad eds. Limaye and Vadekar (1958). Muktika Upaniad in Upaniatsagraha ed. str (1980). Nsihaprvatpan Upaniad in Upaniatsagraha ed. str (1980). Naikarmyasiddhi ed. Jacob (1980). Nrada Pacaratra Sahit ed. Banerjea (1980). Nradaparivrjaka Upaniad in Schrader (1912). xvi

om. PU PD PK PhU Ppd Pnini Ps Prm PM RV Rm vU SS SauU

Omits, omitted Parara Upapurna ed. Tripathi (1990). Pacada ed. Swm Swhnanda (1967). Packaranam in Subrahmanya Sastri (1981). Paramahasa Upaniad in Schrader (1912). Pacapdika ed. Subrahmanya Sastri (1992). The Aadyy ed and tr. Srisa Chandra Vasu (1962). Paramrthasra text and tr. Danielson (1980). Pramaml in Nyya Markaranda, Chaukambha Sanskrit Series, 38, (n.d.). Prara-Mdhavya ed. Chandrakanta Tarkalankara (1973-1974). gveda Sahit eds. Van Nooten and Holland (1994). Rmyaa ed. G. H. Bhatt et al. (1960-1975). vetvatara Upaniad eds. Limaye and Vadekar (1958). Sta Sahit of the Skanda Pura nSS, 25. 3 vols. (1898). Saubhagyalakm Upaniad in Upaniatsagraha, ed. str (1980).

Schrader Schrader, Otto. The Minor Upaniads vol. 1, Sanysa Upaniads (1912). SK SU sh cor. SS T TB TS TU Sakhya Krika ed. Colebrooke (1978). Sanysa Upaiad in Schrader. Second hand corrects. Smtnm Samuccaya nSS, 48. (1905). Taittirya rayaka ed. Rajendralala Mitra (1982). Taittirya Brhmaa ed. Rajendralala Mitra (1981). Taittirya Sahit ed. Gangadhara Bapurava Kale, nSS, 42. (1959-1978). Taittirya Upaniad eds. Limaye and Vaidekar (1958). xvii

US VaP Vcm VDh ViP VU Vv WZKS YDhS YDhP YU YS YSBh YU YV

Upadeashasr ed. Mayeda (1973). Vayu Pura nSS 49, (1983). Vivekacudmai ed. Pravrajika Brahmaprana (1992). Vasiha Dharmastra ed. Fuhrer (1983). Viu Pura ed. M. M. Pathak (1997-?). Varha Upaniad in Upaniatsagraha, ed. str (1980). Vkyavtti ed. Ragantha str, nSS 80, (1998). Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens. Yatidharmasagraha ed Joshi, nSS 60, (1980). Yatidharmapraka ed. Olivelle (1976-1977) Yogaikha Upaniad in Yoga Upaniads ed. Mahadeva str (1983). Ptajalya Yogastras nSS 47, (1984). Yogastra Bhya nSS 47, (1984). Yjavalkya Upaniad in Schrader (1912). Yoga-Vsiha ed. Paakara (1911).

xviii

Introduction Part One The Style and Content of the Jvanmuktiviveka and its Historical Context1.1 General The Jvanmuktiviveka [JMV] is a medieval philosophical work on the Advaita Vednta concept of "liberation-in-life" (jvanmukti)1 and the institution of renunciation (sanysa).2 It is a prakaraa, or treatise, on a specific topic wherein the Brahmin scholar Vidyraya discusses the evidence for and means of achieving liberation-inlife, but it is difficult to classify because of its uniqueness in the history of Sanskrit literature. Vidyraya, also known as Mdhava, composed the JMV c. 1380 C.E.3 toward the end of his life after he had entered the sanysrama and had become the pontiff of the geri maha in southwestern Karnataka. This maha, or monastic institution, still endures today. The text is a novel work in Advaita Vednta, though Vidyraya places himself in line with mainstream Advaitins akara, Surevara, and Padmapda, whom he calls teachers [2.9.914 and 2.3.64].4 Like his predecessors, Vidyraya defines the renouncer's goal as the attainment of the nondual "knowledge" (jna, vidy). The mainstream Advaitins understood that this experiential knowledge of the equivalence of the Self and Brahman is sufficient for the attainment of liberation. Although Vidyraya is careful to incorporate the basic positions of his teachers, he departs from the mainstream Advaita of akara by prescribing in addition to knowledge a further program of yogic discipline based on such texts as the Bhagavad Gt (BhG), the Ptajalya Yogastras (YS), the Gauapdya Kriks 1

(GK), and the Laghu-Yogavsiha (LYV). He integrates the structures of thought from the akaran Advaita and the Ptajalya Yoga systems into one system bearing on the life and goal of the renouncer. The JMV is thus a constructive synthesis of models from Indian thought and in this way stands as a novel contribution to the history of the idea of liberation-in-life. Nevertheless, Vidyraya does not claim to say anything that is not already in the revealed Vedic truth of ruti or in the tradition of Smti. The work became well known in India, but I believe it was composed for a limited, internal audience participating in the debates in medieval Vednta theology. Earlier in his career, Vidyraya under the name Mdhava had composed a legal digest and commentary on the Pararasmti known as the Parara-Mdhavya [PM] and, within that work, included a separate treatise on renunciation. There he deals with the first three of the four types of renouncers: the kucaka, the bahdaka, and the hasa.5 Here in the JMV, Vidyraya focuses on the highest type of renouncer, the paramahasa. For the purpose of introducing my translation and text edition of the JMV, I shall first give a short analysis of the structure of the text's argument and discuss the author's identity and literary activities. Next, in the historical part, I offer some background for the text to place it in context and, based on this, give reasons why I believe Vidyraya made his departure from mainstream Advaita Vednta. As a philosophical text, the JMV offers very little in the way of obvious sociohistorical data, and one must look outside the text for these data. The internal historical evidence one can discern is more amenable to the construction of doctrinal history. Then in a lengthier discussion, I describe Vidyraya's self-conscious philosophical intent by 2

assessing the problem of "operative action" (prrabdhakarma) that he addresses and how he tries to solve it. There I will describe the practical, yogic aspects bearing on the means of liberation according to Vidyraya's doctrine, but I leave the overall assessment of the philosophical coherence and the fuller explanation of the text for future studies. 1.2 Style, Content, and Structure of the Jvanmuktiviveka The JMV is written in an interpretive style common to medieval Sanskrit commentarial treatises wherein objections are raised and answered, and well-known ancient religious works are cited, followed by the author's interpretation of these citations. It is a vda type of discourse in dialogue form in which the author seeks to discover the truth of the issue he sets out to discuss. In contrast, the vita type of discourse seeks to attack another's positions without offering a constructive view in its place that the author believes to be true. Examples of texts formulated in the vitaa type of argument are the Khaanakhaakhdya of r Hara, which attacks Nyya philosophy, and the atadai of Vednta Deika,6 which attacks Advaita Vednta. Vidyraya in the JMV rarely mentions doctrines of opposing philosophical systems.7 Vidyraya follows the traditional Indian standards of logic and exegesis and continually tries to establish the authoritative scriptural basis for the validity of his position. I have translated the term prama as "authoritative basis" here in order to indicate that this is not the prama of making inferences, which is the major concern in Nyya philosophy. As an Advaitin, Vidyraya primarily finds the evidence or proof for the validity for his position in abda prama, which is the revealed Vedic 3

truth found in ruti and the accepted tradition of Smti.8 Demonstrating the validity of his position may require no more than citing a well-known ruti or Smti passage. However, in some instances, Vidyraya is forced to employ other hermeneutic strategies. For example, Vidyraya defines two subtypes of paramahasa, the vividisanysin, or "renouncer prompted by the desire for knowledge," and the vidvatsanysin, the "renouncer who is a knower." When distinguishing between the dharma-s, or duties, enjoined on the paramahasa, he presents the same means of liberation they must carry out, but he distinguishes between which means of liberation is principal or subsidiary (pradhna/upasarjana) based on the respective differences (vyavasth) between each type of renouncer [2.3.2ff, Chapter 2, n.10]. This type of hermeneutic strategy clarifies a question of dharma in the absence of a clear injunction or a testimonial statement derived from revealed scripture or tradition, or a doctrinal statement gathered from another philosopher such as akara or Surevara. Vidyraya brings forth the objections in the dialogue (prvapaka-s) without identifying the objector, so it is never clear whether the objector belongs to a particular school of thought. Frequently, it appears that Vidyraya brings the objections in order to identify possible weaknesses in his position, and then bolster his claims even further with more citations from ruti and Smti and arguments based on logic and exegesis. The text consists of five chapters. The Chapter One gives the authoritative scriptural basis (prama) for liberation-in-life, a summary of the basic definitions and ideas on how to achieve it, and examples from scripture of those who have been jvanmukta-s, or persons liberated-in-life. The Chapters Two and Three are the heart 4

of the book where Vidyraya discusses the means for achieving liberation (sdhana). These chapters discuss the means for liberation-in-life. These means are the principal duties that the renouncer who is a knower must undertake once he has attained the knowledge of truth (tattvajna). Vidyraya explains that the knowledge of truth, once attained, becomes stabilizedand ultimate liberation achievedonly through the practice of the eradication of latent tendencies (vsankaya) and the elimination of the mind (manona), which are the subjects of Chapters Two and Three, respectively. In Chapter Four, Vidyraya discusses the purposes (prayojana-s) served by achieving liberation, i.e., what good it does the renouncer and those around him. Chapter Five is a commentary on the Paramahasa Upaniad. This chapter amounts to an excursus on the renouncer who is a knower (vidvatsanysin), the person qualified to achieve liberation-in-life. The following table outlines structure of the JMV and sequence of its argument and content using the numbering system I have given in the text: I. The Authoritative Basis for Liberation-in-Life (a) Benediction ......................................................................................... 1.0.113 (b) The Renunciation-for-Knowledge ...................................................... 1.1.114 (c) The Renunciation-of-the-Knower ....................................................... 1.2.146 (d) The Nature of Liberation-in-Life ........................................................ 1.3.134 (e) The Characteristics of Liberation-in-Life ............................................ 1.4.126 (f) Bodiless-Liberation ............................................................................... 1.5.17 (g) One Steady-in-Wisdom ...................................................................... 1.6.130 (h) The Devotee-of-the-Lord .................................................................... 1.7.111 (i) One Who Has Transcended-the-Qualities ............................................. 1.8.18 (j) The Brhmaa ....................................................................................... 1.9.14 (k) One Beyond-Castes-and-Orders ...................................................... 1.10.125 II. The Eradication of Latent Tendencies (a) The Mutual Causality of the Means of Liberation-in-Life ..................... 2.1.19 (b) Negative and Positive Statements of the Three Pairs of Means .......... 2.2.116 5

(c) The Principal and Subsidiary Relation of the Three Means ................ 2.3.186 (d) Pure and Impure Latent Tendencies .................................................... 2.4.187 (e) The Nature of the Mind and The Elimination of the Mind .................. 2.5.126 (f) The Way Latent Tendencies are Eradicated ......................................... 2.6.110 (g) The Practice of Pure Latent Tendencies .............................................. 2.7.123 (h) The Practice of Discernment ................................................................. 2.8.17 (i) The Continuance of Impure Latent Tendencies .................................... 2.9.128 (j) The Remedy for Impure Latent Tendencies through Discernment ..... 2.10.149 (k) The Latent Tendency of Pure Consciousness ................................... 2.11.138 III. The Elimination of the Mind (a) The Necessity of Elimination of the Mind .......................................... 3.1.118 (b) The Methods for the Mind's Dissolution ............................................ 3.1.125 (c) The Yogas of Posture and Diet ........................................................... 3.3.112 (d) The Yoga of Breath-Control ............................................................... 3.4.132 (e) Enstasis and the Eight Limbs of Yoga ................................................ 3.5.153 (f) Enstasis of Suppression ...................................................................... 3.6.133 (g) The Four Stages of Control; Control of Speech in Mind ...................... 3.7.16 (h) Control of the Mind in the Knowing Self ........................................... 3.8.116 (i) Control in the Great Self and in the Tranquil Self ................................ 3.9.115 (j) The Enstases with and without Conceptualization ............................. 3.10.160 (k) The Practice of Yoga ........................................................................ 3.11.148 (l) The Elimination of the Mind with Form ............................................ 3.12.113 IV. The Purpose of Attaining One's True Nature (a) Safeguarding of Knowledge ............................................................... 4.1.158 (b) Austerity ............................................................................................. 4.2.134 (c) Absence of Opposition ....................................................................... 4.3.118 (d) Elimination of Suffering and the Manifestation of Bliss ..................... 4.4.114 (e) The Master Yogin and the Knower of Truth ...................................... 4.5.112 V. The Renunciation-of-the-Knower (a) The Path of the Paramahasa Yogins ................................................ 5.1.146 (b) The Principal Rule of the Paramahasa Yogin .................................. 5.2.141 (c) The Paramahasa Yogin's Staff of Knowledge ................................. 5.3.121 (d) The Conduct of the Paramahasa Yogin ........................................... 5.4.149 1.3 Authorship of the Jvanmuktiviveka Despite all that has been written about the sage Vidyraya, we have little reliable data on his identity. I want to consider first the clues available in his own writings. In the beginning of the JMV itself, the author outlines the plan of his book, naming the 6

four types of renouncers, and says "Now, the practices of these (renouncers) have been described by us in the commentary on the Prarasmti. Here the paramahasa is described." [1.0.11] These words by themselves are the single best evidence we have that Vidyraya the author of the JMV is the same as Mdhava the author of the PM. We find in the introductory verses 67 of the PM that the author was the son of Myaa and rmat, brother of Syaa and Bhogantha. He was the disciple of the akarcryas Vidytrtha and Bhrattrtha. These verses also mentions

rkahantha, who may have been his family's preceptor. He studied the black Yajurveda and the Baudhyana dharmastra and belonged to the Bhradvja-gotra.9 His date of birth is unknown; however, according to an inscription preserved at the geri maha, we may be certain he died in 1386.10 In addition to the PM already mentioned, Vidyraya contributed widely to the separate branches of Sanskrit literature during his career under his name Mdhava while in his prvrama, or before he had renounced as an old person. A work related to his digest of civil and religious law in the PM is the Klaniraya. This work falls within the general category of astrology and astronomy and treats the nature of time and how it is divided in the Hindu calendar. But the Klaniraya also relates to dharmastra in that it discusses the auspicious times to perform rituals, and the author specifically mentions that he composed it after his commentary on Parara.11 Vidyraya as Mdhava also composed the well-known work on the fundamentals of Prvamms, the Jaiminyanyyamlvistara. Vidyraya is

mostly known for his philosophical works in Advaita Vednta. However, from these works earlier in his career on dharmastra, ritual performance, and the 7

Prvamms, we gather that his understanding of ritual action and Advaitic knowledge does not place them in some conflict as one might assume they are. There seems to be no indication that Vidyraya as Mdhava was himself married with children. Nevertheless, from these aforementioned works on ritual such as the Klaniraya, we see that he was sensitive to the standards of social and religious life of the wider householder population who formed the ritual-performing collective. We can deduce, furthermore, that he recognized that the Advaitic knowledge prescribed for the renouncer, which was the focus of his literary efforts leading up to the JMV, was not for everyone. I argue that Vidyraya in the JMV attempts to lessen the tension between the householder community and the renouncer by clarifying the renouncer's duties, or dharma-s, and the purposes, or prayojana-s, of liberation-in-life, making them more indentifiable to the householder community. I will address this point further in the section on the context of the JMV below. Mdhava-Vidyraya was involved also in the philosophical debates between the different darana-s, or philosophical schools. His Sarvadaranasagraha is an

arrangement of the various positions in Indian philosophy that Mdhava knew starting from the materialist Crvkas and Buddhists that he thought had the least validity, up to the Ptajalya Yoga system and akara's Advaita that is the highest expression of the truth. The introduction of this text mentions the author "Syaa-Mdhava," which led A. C. Burnell to believe that Mdhava and his brother were the same person. Without any other internal or independent evidence we may only presume the work is his because the view expressed in this text is consistent with those of Vidyraya the Advaitin. We also can speculate that Mdhava and Syaa collaborated and that 8

Mdhava had some involvement in Syaa's Vedabhya.12

Vidyraya also

composed works from the Advaita standpoint such as the Bhadrayakavrtikasra, a commentary on akara's Aparoknubhti, commentaries on the Aitareya, Chndogya, Kaivalya, Nsihottaratpini, and Taittirya Upaniads, as well as a metrical work on the philosophy of the Upaniads, the Anubhtipraka. There are the other texts attached to Vidyraya's name but that may not be his works. This confusion also has led to controversy over identifying Vidyraya with Mdhava13 and added to the confusion over Mdhava-Vidyraya's political role in the founding of the Vijayanagara kingdom, which I will deal with more below. Most notable are some of the standard works of Advaita, the Pacada and the

Vivaraaprameyasagraha. T. M. P. Mahadevan accepted the identity of Mdhava and Vidyraya, and Mdhava's political activities in the founding of Vijayanagara, but believed that the Pacada and the Vivaraaprameyasagraha were works of Vidyraya's preceptor, Bhrattrtha,14 suggesting Vidyraya may have been a surname of both men. In the JMV itself Vidyraya cites the Pacada as an authority and, therefore, does not treat the text as his own. Another text I will deal with more below that has been ascribed to Vidyraya, but which also may not be his, is the akaradigvijaya. 1.4 Controversy over Vijayanagara and Vidyraya Some historians in the twentieth century would have us understand the character of Vidyraya as a unique blend of religious renouncer and secular politician active in guiding the founders of the Vijayanagara kingdom in the early and middle parts of the fourteenth century. His cultural, intellectual, and political contributions mark the 9

beginning of what many believe went on to become the last great Hindu empire in South India. In another, bolder interpretation of Vidyraya's career, Paul Hacker suggested that Vidyraya, "in a sort of deliberate Hindu cultural politics" (Hacker, cited in Halbfass,1995:29), carried out his literary and institutional activities against the effects of the incursions of the Central Asian Turkish Muslims into South India in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, creating a new orthodoxy of Brahmanism. It is true that the Vijayanagara state was founded after the incursions of the Delhi Sultanate destabilized the existing political networks of the South Indian peninsula, leading to the collapse or decline of the previous kingdoms. However, whatever role Vidyraya played in the founding of this kingdom is not certain, even though it has been presumed by many scholars. Standard historical works dealing with the question of the founding of Vijayanagara have repeated the same story, which would lead readers to believe this story's general acceptance among experts. One can take, for instance, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri's A History of South India ([1947] 1976:23739) and N. Venkataramanayya's contribution to The Delhi Sultanate (1960:272273).15 The fact that this version of the history of the founding of Vijayanagara, which represents the Andhra or Telugu version, was chosen to appear in such a major work as Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's History and Culture of the Indian People volume 6 on the Delhi Sultanate, excluding the differing views of the Kannaa historians, indicates its wide acceptance by many historians some forty years ago. Subsequently, this story found its way into many standard works on Indian history. One of the problems with the Andhra version is that it draws heavily on the later Sanskrit textual accounts such as the Vidyraya10

klajna, Vidyraya-vttnta, and the Vidyraya-aka that were composed some 200 years after the events in question. According to the Andhra version, the founding Sagama brothers Harihara I and Bukka I were retainers of the Kkatya royal house and were captured by the Turkish Muslims during their attack on Warangal, the Kkatya capital in Andhra. The brothers were taken to Delhi and converted to Islam. They were then sent back to the south as administrators of the Sultanate and met Vidyraya, who saw fit to convert them back to the Hindu Dharma. They then are supposed to have broken away from the Sultanate and to have begun forming their own kingdom c. 1336. This date of 1336 was then erroneously agreed upon by the scholars who published the Vijayanagara Sexcentenary Commemoration Volume.16 According to this version, drawing as it does on later Sanskrit sources which purport to relate Vidyraya's activities, he is thus given a key role in the founding of Vijayanagara. The Sagamas supposedly were successful in founding their glorious Hindu kingdom only after they received Vidyraya's blessing. Against the Andhra or Telugu version, the adherents of a Karnatic origin of the Sagamas argue that Harihara and Bukka were already in the service of the Hoysaas. The city called Hosapaaa or Virpkapaaa had already been built on the site of the future Vijayanagara by Ballla III, and was known also by its name still used currently, Hampi. The early date of 1336 for the foundation of the new kingdom is discarded also because, in the view first proposed by Father Henry Heras, it is based only on spurious copper-plate inscriptions made in the sixteenth century. This theory states these copper-plate inscriptions were forged by the geri maha at a time when the Vijayanagara kings shifted their interest from the aivite maha to the Vaiava 11

faith, and the leaders of the maha wanted to reassert their prestige by connecting themselves directly with the foundation of the empire. Heras and others favored the date 1346 for the founding of the kingdom, pointing to an inscription recording what is called either the mahotsava, or "great festival," orvijayotsava, or "victory festival," of the brothers held at the geri maha.17 This inscription does not mention any role of Vidyraya and thus his political activities, if any, do not even figure in the founding of the kingdom. The actual founding of the capital is thought to be decades later, owing to a dynastic continuity between the Sagamas and the Hoysaas through marriage alliances. The picture is more one of a smooth transition of power from the Hoysaas to the Sagamas. The controversy over the origins of the Sagama brothers and the founding of the city and empire continued for the better part of the twentieth century, without resolution among the two factions. 1.5 Revised Views of Vidyraya's Career Sufficient research has appeared in recent decades to give a very different account from what historians had written previously about the theologian Vidyraya's role in early Vijayanagara and the geri maha. The epigraphical work of Vasundhara Filliozat (1973, 1999) and the article drawing from Filliozat's work by Hermann Kulke (1985), as well as the study by Phillip Wagoner (2000) treating the Sanskrit text sources such as the Vidyraya-klajna and the others mentioned, allow us to further delineate the scope of Vidyraya's activities, and perhaps more accurately infer some of his intentions. From the work of Filliozat, Kulke, and Wagoner we may derive the following conclusions: 12

(1) Vidyraya had no involvement in the politics of founding Vijayanagara; at least there is no contemporary epigraphical or textual evidence naming him in connection with these events. Phillip Wagoner (2000:304305) interprets the later Sanskrit textual accounts, where Vidyraya is mentioned and which is datable to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as a "political foundation myth, an ideological attempt to represent the authority of the Vijayanagara state as deriving directly from that of the Sultanate." It is meant to cast Vijayanagara as a legitimate successor state to Delhi among the other sultanates in the Deccan. The role played by Vidyraya in the founding of Vijayanagara as political and religious advisor to Harihara I and Bukka I was probably imagined at least 200 years afterward, and Vidyraya's name was used presumably to give these events legitimacy and prestige. (2) The earlier notions of Vidyraya's political stature derive in part from the misidentification of his former pre-renunciation name Mdhava with the Mdhava who was a minister to the Sagama brother Mallapa I. We cannot adduce any

political activities like those of the Mdhavamantrin as indicative of MdhavaVidyraya's activities in his early career. (3) Mdhavcrya is not mentioned in any inscriptions before 1374, but only the prior jagadgurus of geri Vidytrtha and Bhratitrtha are mentioned. Therefore, the earlier role of Mdhava in geri and his ascension to jagadguru as Vidyraya cannot be confirmed before 1374. We can only presume that he was present in 1346 at the Sagama's mahotsava at geri, although he is not mentioned. The key event in the founding of Vijayanagara that the historians favoring the Kannaa version have pointed to is the mahotsava that the Sagama rulers are said to 13

have held at the Advaita Vednta maha at geri in 1346. geri is one of the monastic institutions that the Advaitin tradition believes was founded by the great akara. We may consider this mahotsava, or "great festival," an historical event because it was recorded with an inscription found at geri. Here in 1346 the new Vijayanagara sovereigns began a patronage relationship with the akarcrya and jagadguru Vidytrtha. They received his legitimizing blessing for their kingdom and geri received the surrounding lands as a land grant, or agrahra. geri is in Karnataka, near the border with Kerala, and it appears that the Sagamas' relationship with it lends more credence to the Kannaa version of the founding of Vijayanagara kingdom, according to which the Sagamas were retainers to the Hoysaa royal house in Karnataka and not the Kkatyas in Andhra. For the Kannaa version, the date 1346 then marks the inheritance of the Hoysaa domains by the new Sagama dynasty. (4) From the time of this mahotsava in 1346 until Vidyraya's ascension to the role of jagadguru in c. 1374, the lands and money granted to geri by the Vijayanagara rulers greatly increased. Therefore, when Vidyraya actually became the jagadguru, geri was a very different place from what it had been just 30 years earlier, and we may surmise that the influence attached to the role of jagadguru had increased as well. It is not clear exactly what characterized this increased influence or what degree of secular powers were vested in it. One can at least say it allowed for a further promulgation of Advaitin views as they were being taught at geri at this time under the jagadgurus Vidytrtha, Bhratitrtha, and Vidyraya, as well as provided the 14

environment for the commentaries on the Veda carried out by Sayaa and his workers. Vidyraya himself had presumably already completed his PM and his Sarvadaranasagraha before he had become jagadguru in c. 1374, and perhaps at some time shortly before this he took the name Vidyraya upon formally renouncing. It was after this that he composed the JMV, some time between 1380 and his death in 1386.18 To return to Paul Hacker's thesis mentioned above, given what I have outlined above from the work of Filliozat and Kulke, I pose the following questions: (1) In what sense may we say the activities of Vidyraya constitute a "deliberate Hindu cultural politics?" (2) What was his intention? (3) At whom or what was it directed? Was it prompted by the Islamic presence in South India in the fourteenth century, or by other factors? In presenting his thesis, Hacker ascribes to Vidyraya the

responsibility for creating the myth in the akaradigvijaya [DV] of akara and akara's founding of geri and the other Advaitin mahas. Jonathan Bader

(2000:5556 and n. 75) has shown in a full-length study of all the akaran hagiographical works, that Mdhava-Vidyraya was not the author of the DV because it was composed at the earliest sometime between 1650 and 1798 and was therefore wrongly attributed to Mdhava-Vidyraya. If this is the case, an attempt to infer Vidyraya's "cultural politics" is made more ambiguous and must be revised. It is also evident, as was noted by Kulke, that the oldest inscriptions at geri date to the twelfth century and identify a Jaina presence. Kulke believes this "does not yet permit a Jaina origin of geri" (1985:13), but for the purpose of this study, the inscriptions at geri show that the establishment had been taken as the residence of 15

the Advaitin jagadgurus at least by the Sagama mahotsava in 1346, and afterward in 1356 Bukka I designated lands near geri as an agrahra. epigraphical evidence makes no reference to akara himself. Bader (2000:56) notes that Mdhava the author of the DV (not MdhavaVidyraya) venerates the jagadguru Vidytrtha: "Because Vidytrtha is considered the greatest guru in the geri lineage, it is not surprising for him to be evoked by the author of the DV, who, we may assume, was affiliated with that tradition." Without the supporting evidence of a contemporary hagiographical work composed by Mdhava-Vidyraya in the fourteenth century, it is only on the basis of the epigraphical evidence and the literary production of Mdhava-Vidyraya and Syaa that we may still suppose geri jagadgurus initiated a Hindu cultural politics sometime in the second half of the fourteenth century. I think the intention behind such a program was more limited than Paul Hacker had speculated. The literary activities of Mdhava-Vidyraya and Syaa were surely meant to promote a sort of orthodox Brahmanism based on Advaita, though I doubt it was prompted by some political and cultural pressure due to the Islamic presence. The most we can say is that the presence of Muslim intellectuals on the subcontinent contributed to the overall intellectual climate and that Vidyraya and Syaa produced their novel works within this climate. Patronage given to them by the Vijayanagara sovereigns for their literary productions also cannot be simply presumed to promote "Hinduism" versus a Muslim presence. We must be careful in assessing the "Hindu" nature of the Vijayanagara state.19 However, the

16

To give some provisional answer to the third question I posed above, I think it is more likely that Vidyraya promoted his Advaita Brahmanism in response to the rvaiava sectarian presence in neighboring Andhra and Tamil Nadu, rather than in response to some Islamic presence. The sharply increasing patronage the Sagamas made available to geri allowed for a never-before-realized institutional growth and the formation of a maha based in Advaita teachings. Had there been a maha at geri previous to 1346, it was most likely not a public institution with far-reaching influence in its teachings and did not garner much patronage. I speculate, then, that when the jagadgurus of geri Vidytrtha, Bhratitrtha, and Vidyraya started securing greater patronage in the second half of the fourteenth century, and bestowing some sacred legitimacy on their Sagama patrons, they could begin to compete for the patronage of other areas that had previously been under the control of other sovereigns. It is unlikely they would have approached Islamic sovereigns for such patronage. I propose that the Advaitin jagadgurus looked to other territories to promote their Advaitin theology in the political vacuum created by the collapse of institutions in the early part of the fourteenth century after the Turkish incursions into South India. When the newly legitimated Sagama dynastic kings filled this political vacuum and began expanding to other territories, the Advaita jagadgurus also looked to other territories whose sovereigns and local leaders were responsible for the management of temples and who had long patronized the rvaiava sectarians.20 Even if

territoriessay in the vicinities of rragam in Tamil Nadu or Tirupati in Andhrawere not yet under the control of the Vijayanagara sovereigns in the middle 17

of the fourteenth century, the geri jagadgurus could at least look to these areas traditionally populated by the rvaiava sectarians as a place to promote their Advaitin teachings. It is in this limited sense, then, that I would use the idea of a "deliberate cultural politics." There were also other competing groups in fourteenthcentury South India, most notably the aiva Klamukhas and Vraaivas. Surely the geri Advaitins would have been acquainted with them and competed with them for support. But the textual evidence to my knowledge does not mention them as serious opponents of the Advaitin theological views. Therefore I believe the geri

Advaitins would have limited the scope of their theological programs for the most part to the vaiava Viidvaitins, who could argue with them on the same theological grounds. It is in this milieu, then, that I would like to place the appearance of Vidyraya's JMV. At about the time that Vidyraya became the jagadguru of geri c. 1374, the Vijayanagara sovereigns expanded their control to territories traditionally held by rvaiavas in Tamil Nadu and Andhra in 1371 C.E. In his study of the Koil Olugu, the chronicle of the rvaiava temple complex at rragam, George W. Spencer21 (1978:2326) discusses the motives for the Vijayanagara generals of the Sagama sovereigns who took authority over and restored order to this temple. Drawing on the work of Arjun Appadurai on king/temple relations, Spencer believes that aside from piety or material gain, they patronized this temple in order to have it confer on them its legitimation and sought the ceremonial honors. Based on the coincidences of these dates and the expansion enjoyed by the Advaitins of geri since 1356 under the initial patronage of the Vijayanagara sovereigns, I suggest that Vidyraya, as the new 18

akarcrya of geri, saw these new territories subsumed under Vijayanagara authority as a new opportunities for the promotion of Advaita. If we can place

anything about the JMV in time and space and consider Vidyraya's motives beyond teaching his own Advaitin followers, I think his deliberate cultural politics was to promote Advaita among sectarian rvaiava laypeople in these newly controlled territories and defend the idea of liberation-in-life against the rvaiava theologians. 1.6 The Jvanmuktiviveka in Context The leading theologian of the rvaiava Visidvaitin school in the fourteenth century, and worthy opponent of Vidyraya, was Vednta Deika. Deika's

atadai directly attacks the Advaitin positions. One can point to a couple of obvious cases of refutations that Vidyraya then countered with his broad program in the JMV. The 31st refutation of the atadai, the Jvanmuktibhagavda, rejects the Advaitin notion of jvanmukti in particular. And the 65th refutation, the

Alepakamatabhagavda, deals specifically with the Advaitin renunciation and rejects it as antinomian libertinism (text and trans. Olivelle 1987:97158). It is probable that Vednta Deika presumed the rules for ascetical renouncers as set out by the Yatidharmasamucaya, a legal digest composed in the second half of the eleventh century by Ydava Praka. This text emerged out of the sectarian

rvaiava theological context. The views in this text differed greatly from the ascetic tradition of the Advaita. It retained main rules for the Brahmanical

householders, and indeed integrated the ascetical life of the renouncer into the ritual life of the householder. Olivelle states in the introduction to his edition of the Yatidharmasamucaya (1995: 1718) that, for the rvaiava tradition, the renouncer 19

is really something more of "a very exalted type of Brahmanical householder rather than a figure who contradicts the value system represented by domestic life." This tradition was much more concerned with preserving ritual boundaries of purity and impurity, especially concerning the body. Vidyraya, however, specifically states in the Chapter Two of the JMV there is no possibility of cleansing the body, and the desire to do so is another latent tendency, or vsan, that should be dissolved: "Through its nine openings filth constantly oozes out; through its innumerable pores it is covered with sweatwho indeed is able even with the greatest effort to wash the body?" [2.4.80] Such concerns show us the basically conservative and communal view of the rvaiavas, who admitted the ancient and classical values of the ascetic traditions, but fully subsumed them within the householder mainstream. In medieval times, although renunciation was presented in the Brahmanical law books as a value common to all Brahmins, or twice-born classes, the reality was that the ascetic tradition became organized into monastic establishments divided along sectarian lines. Interestingly, although we can be sure Vidyraya was the head of just such a monastic establishment, the geri maha, he mentions the term maha only once, late in Chapter Five of the JMV. This mention is in the context, moreover, of an extended discussion of the definition of the highest type of renouncer, the paramahasa yogin. The term maha is mentioned by way of commentary on the Paramahamsa Upaniad 4, where it states that "the mendicant remains homeless." Vidyraya comments: "If he (i.e., the paramahasa yogin) were to come to some monastery (maha) in order to have a permanent residence, then, given that he feels a sense of ownership with regard to it, its decline and growth would distract his mind" 20

[5.4.11]. Why then, would Vidyraya compose a book at the time when he was head of the geri maha defining an individual who, Vidyraya seems to believe, did not belong in his own monastic establishment? The reason is again, I believe, that Vidyraya was responding to refutations given by the Viidvaitins, in particular that jvanmukti is not a valid possibility. For Vednta Deika, Advaitin renunciation is not a valid order in society, or rama institution, nor is it valid to say it is beyond the rama-s, as some Advaitins, including Vidyraya, tried to argue. First of all let us deal with the latter objection. One of the first arguments made in JMV concerns the nature of vividisanysa, or "renunciation out of the desire for knowledge." Vidyraya cites the appropriate prama-s, or authoritative scriptural passages, from the Upaniads such as BU 4.4.22: "etam eva pravrjino lokam icchanta pravrajanti" (Desiring this alone as their world, the renouncers undertake the life of wandering) [1.1.6]. He then defines vividisanysa as twofold: "the one consisting only in the abandonment of rites and the like, which produces rebirth; the other constitutes an order in society (rama) that is connected with carrying a staff and the like, which are preceded by uttering the praia ritual formula" [1.1.11]. This is a very important distinction which is assumed in the rest of the text. Roger Marcaurelle (2000:188194) in his study of akara's views on renunciation terms these two types "informal" and "formal" renunciation. Vidyraya also later refers to a distinction between "Vedic" and "common" (laukika) in this regard. One type of renunciation out of the desire for knowledge (vividisanysa) can be an informal, inward, mental abandonment of rites and wandering mendicancy 21

for the attainment of knowledge. The other type is a formal rama, or public order in society, that is entered fulltime and involves emblems of this institution like carrying a staff and a public declaration of the intention to renounce. It is here then that Vidyraya extends the entitlement to this kind of renunciation, the informal type, to women and to members of the other rama-s by saying: "When, for whatever reason, Vedic students, householders, and forest-dwellers are prevented from entering the renunciant order, there is nothing to prevent the mental abandonment of rites and the like for the purpose of knowledge, even while they remain performing the duties (dharma-s) of their own order, because we see many such knowers of truth in the rutis, Smtis, Itihsas, and Puras" [1.1.14]. Then, in conclusion of this section he comments "Since the order of the paramahasa, which is the cause of knowing and consists in carrying the staff and the like, has been treated at length in many ways by earlier teachers. Therefore, we will not deal with it" [1.1.15]. For Vidyraya, the knowledge of Brahman may then be realized in either way. This realization, however, necessarily leads to the vidvatsanysa, or renunciationof-the-knower. While both vividisanysa and vidvatsanysa are under the rubric of "paramahasa," Vidyraya that says they each have different duties or dharma-s. The one is meant to perform means to realize knowledge of Brahman; the other must perform that which allow the knower to safeguard that realization, i.e., by means of yogic practices. This is not an rama per se. Nonetheless it seems there is always some ambiguity here, because in Chapter Five Vidyraya says renunciationof-the-knower has characteristics of both types of renunciation out of the desire for knowledge. Given that the renunciation-of-the-knower is basically a modification of 22

renunciation-for-knowledge,

it carries with it all the details pertaining to the

prototype, according to the hermeneutic maxim: "praktivad vikti kartavy" (The modification should conform to the archetype) [5.1.39].22 That is to say, the ritual details of the archetype ritual must all carry over to the modification: "This is just as in the case of the Agnioma Soma sacrifice, where the ritual details pertaining to it are applicable to the modified rites such as the Atirtra" [5.1.39]. However, the means of knowledge then become subsidiary for the renouncer who is a knower, and the yogic practices become primary. [2.3] For the more conservative householder community of the rvaiava Viidvaitins, ambiguity in regard to religious life could not be tolerated. Did a

renunciant have a place in society or not? Vidyraya took the view that once an individual renunciant realizes the liberating knowledge of Brahman, he should continue living a renunciant lifestyle as a yogin. Vidyraya believed that the knowledge of Self (tman) as Brahman in classical Advaita philosophy is not enough to completely root out suffering and prrabdhakarma, or operative action, which causes future births. Liberation also requires a lifelong commitment to the yogic practices of the eradication of latent tendencies (vsankaya) and elimination of the mind (manonaa). To be liberated in this lifetime, a jvanmukta, the individual who realizes the equivalence of self and Brahman, must sustain further yogic discipline and a renunciant lifestyle for the rest of his life, renouncing even the fact that he is a knower of Brahman. Yoga of Patajali was by this time already very ancient, originating as early as perhaps the second century B.C.E. Yoga philosophy had permeated the religious life of Hindus in various forms, including by this time the 23

Kualini Yoga of Tantric cults and the Haha Yoga of the Nath ascetics. I believe that one reason Vidyraya went back to the earlier Yoga of Patajali and integrated it with Sakara's philosophy of the liberating knowledge was to accommodate the conservative rvaiava view of Vednta Deika. Making the renouncer responsible for further moral perfecting beyond the attainment of knowledge puts him above all reproach directed at him by the housholder community. Indeed, one of the purposes of liberation-in-life that Vidyraya treats in Chapter Four of the JMV is the "absence of opposition" (visavdbhva) to the master yogin by members of varying sects. [4.3] His virtue is obvious to everyone. Viewed from a sociopolitical standpoint, Vidyraya wanted to mitigate the ambiguity of the individual renunciant's position in the mainstream community by directing him to sustain the path toward his spiritual goal, knowledge and liberation from desire. even after attaining

Vidyraya preserved the possibility of

complete liberation in this lifetime, while not disturbing the conventional religious social order. In following Vidyraya's teaching, the individual who renounces society lessens the resulting tension by maintaining an identifiable lifestyle, and the highest moral standards, with conventional ascetical practices. He does not

compromise his position but remains an ascetic outside of, while still recognized by, the householder society. Granted, this may not have satisfied the rvaiava community. The

interpretation and reinterpretation of normative texts and teachings, and the appropriation of legitimate views of opposing sides continues still. It is in this sense we can see why Walter Slaje believes that Vidyraya's JMV is "tendentious," though 24

I don't think Vidyraya is "naive."23 It is the business of theologians to look for ways to interpret their normative textual tradition in order to apply it to their contemporary situations. We do not hear scholars criticizing Thomas Aquinas for changing anything in his new treatment of Aristotle. It may well be that Vidyraya changed ideas in his normative textual tradition, though all the while not admitting he had made anything new.

25

NotesThe term jvanmukta (not jvanmukti) appears in the Mahbhrata in the context of battle but does not carry the Advaitin meaning. See Minoru Hara, "A Note on the Epic Phrase Jvanmukta," Adyar Library Bulletin: 60 (1996) pp. 181197. Walter Slaje has taken this point and attempts to trace sources for jvanmukti that are separate and independent of the Advaita Vednta treatment of the concept. See Slaje, "Towards a history of the jvanmukti concept: the Mokadharma in the Mahbhrata," in Festschrift Minoru Hara, (2000b) pp. 325348. See also Slaje, "Liberation for Intentionality and Involvement: On the Concept of Jvanmukti according to the Mokopaya," JIP 28 (2000a) pp. 171194. For studies of jvanmukti as it developed through different Indian philosophical schools, including Advaita Vednta, see Gerhard Oberhammer, La Dliverance, Ds Cette Vie (jvanmukti), Collge de France Publications de L'Institut de Civilisation Indienne. Srie in 8, Fasc. 61 (Paris: ditions-Difussion Boccard, 1994); Andrew O. Fort and Patricia Y. Mumme, eds., Living Liberation in Hindu Thought (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996); Fort, Jvanmukti in Transformation: Embodied Liberation in Advaita and Neo-Advaita (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998); L. K. L. Sristava, Advaitic Concept of Jvanmukti (Delhi and Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1990); and A. G. Krishna Warrier, The Concept of Mukti in Advaita Vednta (Madras: University of Madras, 1981). In the introduction to his Italian translation of the JMV, Roberto Donatoni offers a more extensive philosophical background for the text than what I have attempted here. See his La Liberazione in Vita: Jvanmuktiviveka (Milano: Adephi Edizioni, 1995) pp. 1183.2 1

For studies of renunciation in Brahmanism, see Har Dutt Sharma, Contributions to the History of Brhmaical Asceticism (Sanysa), (Poona: Oriental Book Agency, 1939); and Patrick Olivelle, Sanysa Upaniads: Hindu Scriptures on Asceticism and Renunciation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992) pp. 19112, where he has given an extended introduction to his translation of these Upaniads. See also Olivelle, "A Definition of World Renunciation," WZKS 19 (1975) pp. 7583. "The Integration of Renunciation by Orthodox Hinduism," Journal of the Oriental Institute (Baroda) 28 (1978) pp. 2736; "Contributions to the Semantic History of Sanysa," Journal of the American Oriental Society 3 (1981) pp. 265274; "Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharmastras," in Studies in Dharmastra, ed. Richard W. Lariviere (Calcutta: Firma KLM, 1984) pp. 81152; and Renunciation in Hinduism: A Medieval Debate, De Nobili Research Library, vols. 1314 (Vienna: University of Vienna Institute for Indology, 19861987). Olivelle has also edited and translated two nibandha-s, or legal digests, on yatidharma, or the rules and duties governing the life of renouncers. See Vsudevrama Yatidharmapraka: A Treatise on World Renunciation, De Nobili Research Library, vols. 34 (Vienna: University of Vienna Institute for Indology, 19761977), which is a work coming from the Advaita tradition of renunciation; and Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism: Yatidharmasamuccaya of Ydava Praka, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), which belongs to the rvaiava tradition. Olivelle also critically edited another text of this type called the Sanysapaddhati of Rudra Deva Adyar Library Series 114 (Madras: Adyar Library, 1986). Another work of this later type that has been edited and published is the Yatidharmasagraha, ed. Pt. Ganesha Shastri Joshi, nSS 60 (Pune: nandrama Sansth, 1980).

3

The date 1380 is given by J. F. Sprockhoff in the first part of his thorough study of the JMV in "Der Weg zur Erlsung bei Lebzeiten, ihr Wesen und Wert, Nach dem Jvanmuktiviveka des Vidyraya," WZKS 8 (1964) p. 225. He assigned it to 1350 in the earlier article "Zur idee der Erlsung bei Lebzeiten in Buddhismus," Numen 9 (1962) p. 202. Andrew Fort (1996, 1998) has characterized Vidyraya's contribution as "Yogic Advaita," stating that the JMV is syncretic. Elsewhere Fort analyzes Vidyraya's use of the YS in his text but maintains that Vidyraya still believed that "ultimately there is no doubt that knowing brahman is the essential element for full liberation." See Fort, "On Destroying the Mind: The Yogastras in Vidyraya's Jvanmuktiviveka," JIP 27 (1999) pp. 377378.4

26

5

See Pararasmti - Parara Mdhava [PM], ed. Chandrakanta Tarkalankara, 1st ed. Bibliotheca Indica Series 1893, rpt. ed., 3 vols. (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 19731974) vol. 1, pp. 530 ff. Vednta Deika titles his specific refutations not as via-s but rather as bhagavda-s.

6 7

For example, Vidyraya disagrees with the view in Nyya that the mind is eternal and atomic in size. See below, 2.5.1, and Chapter 2, n.48.8

Throughout my translation of the JMV, I have not translated the Sanskrit words ruti, smti, stra, and stra. Rather than translate them as "heard or revealed scripture," "remembered tradition," "aphorism," and "technical treatise," I wish to focus the reader's mind on the specifics of literary genre as they were formulated in Indian culture.

See PM vol. 1, p. 3, verses 67: rmat janan sukrtir myaa | syao bhogantha ca manovuddh sahodarau || yasya baudhyaa stra kh yasya ca yju | bhradvja kula yasya sarvaja sa hi mdhava || The inscription has been translated and published in Vidyraya, prepared by Uttankita Sanskrit Vidy-Aranya Trust, Uttankita Sanskrit Vidy-Aranya Epigraphs (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1985) vol. 1, pp. 112117. It records a grant made by Harihra II to the maha upon Vidyraya's death and is dated May 26, 1386.11 10

9

See verse 4:vykhyya mdhavcryo dharmn prsarnatha | tadanuhnaklasya niraya kartum udyata || Klamchava, ed. Braja Kishore Swain, Kashi Sanskit Series 45 (Varanasi: Chaukambha Sanskrit Sansthan, 1989) p. ii.12

P. V. Kane in HDh vol. 1, pt. 2, 3d ed. (1997) believes Syaa must have collaborated. "It should not be supposed that Syaa single-handedly composed the Vedabhyas. He was probably the chairman of the committee of scholars fathered for carrying out the work of several bhyas" (p. 781). This debate was carried on by historians in series of articles in the 1930s. R. Rama Rao, in "Origin of the Mdhava-Vidyraya Theory," Indian Historical Quarterly 7 (1931) p. 7892, denied this identity, while K. Markandeya Sarma, in "Identity of Vidyraya and Mdhavcrya," Indian Historical Quarterly 8 (1932) p. 611614, rejoins Rao and cites the same evidence given here from PM. M. A. Doraiswamy Iyengar, in "The Mdhava-Vidyraya Theory," Journal of Indian History 12 (n.d.) p. 241250, rejects the identity and would "reduce Vidyraya from the position of a world-figure to that of an insignificant ascetic who presided over the geri Mah from c. 1377 to 1386 A.D." (p. 243). My own view here is that they are the same, but Mdhava-Vidyraya's political role is less clear than the historians of the twentieth century want to ascribe to him. I would not, however, call him "an insignificant ascetic."14 13

See Mahadevan's The Philosophy of Advaita with Special Reference to Bhrattrtha-Vidyraya (Madras: Ganesh and Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1957) pp. 18.15

See also his Vijayanagara: Origin of the City and Empire, orig. pub. 1933 (New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1990) pp. 5990. Published by Dharwar: Vijayanagara Empire Sexcentenary Association, 1936.

16 17

This view was proposed by Father Henry Heras in Beginnings of Vijayanagara History (Bombay: n.p., 1929) and B. A. Saletore in Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire, 2 vols. (Madras: n.p., 1931).

27

18 19

See above, Introduction 1, n.3.

See Anila Verghese, Religious Traditions at Vijayanagara as Revealed Through its Monuments, Vijayanagara Research Project Monograph Series, vol. 4 (New Delhi: Manohar, American Institute of Indian Studies, 1995). "Earlier writers have interpreted titles such as 'supporters of dharma' or 'upholders of the ancient constitutional usage' too literally. Such titles constitute an important part of the traditional pedigree of the kings of ancient India and 'protection of dharma' formed part of the coronation oath of Hindu kings. It is true that wars against the Bahman sultns were frequent. But their cause was more political and economic rather than religious. It was but a revival of the ancient feud that had existed between the Deccan and south India under the earlier Hindu sovereigns, e.g., between the Chlukyas of Badami and the Pallavas, the Chlukyas of Kalyi and the Chas, the Ydavas and the Hoysaas. Besides, the major victims of the Vijayanagara arms were not always the Muslims. The expansion and maintenance of the Vijayanagara empire also necessitated military expeditions against less powerful Hindu rulers, such as the abuvaryas, the Reis of Koavdu, the Vlamas and the Gajapatis. Also, Muslim soldiers played an important part in the successes of the Vijayanagara army. "Therefore, the Hindu nature of the Vijayanagara state should not be overstressed. However, it must be accepted that the empire did create conditions for the defense of Hindu culture and institutions and it succeeded in limiting the expansion of Muslim power in the Deccan for over two centuries. During this period the outlook of the Hindus of the south developed into an orthodoxy in social and religious matters. The encouragement of religion by the Vijayanagara monarchs, as revealed by the numerous inscriptions, included promotion of Vdic and other studies, support of brhmaas, generous patronage extended to mahas and temples, pilgrimages to religious places and celebration of public rituals." (pp. 23) For a theory of the power structure of South Indian temple complexes in the premodern South Indian state, see Arjun Appadurai, "Kings, Sects, and Temples in South India: 13501700 A.D.," in South Indian Temples: An Analytical Reconsideration, ed. Burton Stein (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 1978) pp. 4773. Those who actually carried out the operations of the temple complexes such as riragam and Tirupati were not the theologians like Rmnuja and Vednta Deika.

20

See "Crisis of Authority in a Hindu Temple under the Impact of Islam," in Religion and the Legitimation of Power in South Asia ed. Bardwell L. Smith (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978) pp. 1427.22

21

Cf. Arthasagraha of Laugki Bhskara, 23, eds. A. B. Gajendragadkar and R. D. Karmarkar, (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998) p.19: "Where there is a specification or mention of all subsidiaries, that [is] the arche-type, as the new moon and full moon sacrifices and others. For, in their context all subsidiaries are mentioned. Where all subsidiaries are not specified, that [is] is the modification, as the oblation to the sun (saurya). There some subsidiaries become available (prpta) by means of extended application."

23

See Slaje (2000a) p. 171, and "On Changing Others' Ideas: the case of Vidyraya and the Yogavsiha," Indo-Iranian Journal 41 (1998) p. 103.

28

Introduction Part Two The Means of Liberation according to the Jvanmuktiviveka2.1 The Problem of Operative Action At the outset of the JMV, Vidyraya makes a basic distinction between the renouncer who desires knowledge (vividisanysin) [1.1], and renouncer who is a knower (vidvatsanysin) [1.2].1 Both are subtypes of the highest type of renouncer, the paramahasa. [1.2.17] As an Advaitin, Vidyraya of course gives importance to the realization of knowledge of the truth of the non-dual equivalence of the Self and Brahman. However, realizing the liberating knowledge is not sufficient and is not the ultimate goal. It remains possible for the renouncer who has attained that knowledge to achieve complete liberation from all future births while still in the physical body. The possibility of liberation-in-life, while accepted in Advaita Vednta, remained controversial and paradoxical and was rejected by other schools of Indian philosophy.2 Vidyraya defines liberation-in-life: The nature of the mind of a living persona nature that is characterized by such things as being a doer or an experiencer, happiness and sufferingconstitutes bondage because it consists in affliction (klea). Removal of this (bondage) is liberation-in-life. [1.3.2]3 Initially the bondage is removed by the knowledge of truth, but according to Vidyraya, bondage is not permanently removed. Knowledge is not stabilized until the individual knower goes on to master yogic discipline, whose purpose is the "suppression of mental activity" (cittavttinirodha) [YS 1.2], and he must ultimately reach enstasis (samdhi). With knowledge alone, the knower can achieve bodiless29

liberation or liberation after the death of the present body (videhamukti). Both the Adyar and nSS editions and some manuscripts of the JMV contain the reading that says that liberation-in-life resembles bodiless-liberation.4 However, there is

compelling manuscript evidence that Vidyraya meant that the two types of liberation are equal, not merely similar.5 The reading that states that liberation-in-life resembles bodiless-liberation is a citation of LYV 3.1.88: nn jnaikanihnm tmajnavicrim / s jvanmuktatodeti videhamuktateva y // [LYV 3.1.88: P1, P2, Adyar, nSS] In men focused only on knowledge, and who investigate the knowledge of the self, there arises the state of liberation-in-life which is like (iva) the state of bodiless-liberation. Some manuscripts, and the Adyar and nSS editions of JMV, read iva here rather than eva. However, there is compelling manuscript evidence that Vidyraya meant that the two types of liberation are equal, not merely similar. s jvanmuktatodeti videhamuktataiva y. [B1, B2, B3, PGh, LYV (1937), YV (1911)] The B1, B2, B3, and PGh, as well as the 1937 Nirnayasagar edition of LYV, and the 1911 Nirnayasagar edition of the YV at the corresponding text 3.9.2, read eva. Though it is a mere matter of a stroke in the e versus ai vowel sign in sandhi for -iva versus -eva in the devangar script, the difference is significant for the argument put forth here. I contend that Vidyraya believes that liberation-in-life is equal to bodiless-liberation, rather than merely resembling bodiless-liberation as the other reading has it. The author takes up this point again at the end of the discussion of bodiless-liberation, where another difficult reading in the text occurs and I believe that 30

this reading was changed by the scribes. The Adyar and nSS editions, as well as all the manuscripts I have been able to collate, have the reading: evavidhay videhamukty sdyokter jvanmuktv api yvad yvan nirvikalptiayas tvat tvad uttamatva draavyam || [1.5.7] In this manner, because of the mentioned resemblance with bodiless liberation (sdyokte), one must recognize that liberation-in-life is better and better insofar as there is an increasing abundance of no-distinctions (nirvikalptiaya). All the manuscripts have some form of sdyokter: P2 and B3 read sdyatvokter; which PGh has corrected in the margin by an editor to sdyatvokter yathokta. P1 reads sadyatvokter yathokta; B2, sadatvokter yathokta; and nSS, sadatvotkaratvokter yathokta. I discovered that the B1 manuscript, which regularly has the difficult readings, in this instance again has the difficult reading. Instead of some form of sdyokter, it clearly has sadasatvokter. To make sense of this reading I have made a small emendation here on the basis of the frequency with which visarga-s are dropped before sibilants in manuscripts. The emendation simply involved adding a visarga to make the instrumental videhamukty a genitive videhamukty. The instrumental evavidhay must also be emended to the genitive evavidhy with its visarga dropped in sandhi. This then yields the text and translation: evavidhy videhamukty sadasatvokter jvanmuktv api yvad yvan nirvikalptiayas tvat tvad uttamatva draavyam. [1.5.7] Because bodiless-liberation of such a kind has been described as existent and non-existent, one must recognize that in liberation-in-life also, the more there is an increasing abundance of no-distinctions (nirvikalptiaya), the more eminent it (liberation-in-life) is.

31

The reference made by sadasatvokter is not to LYV 3.1.88 as in the others, but to another loka much closer to this comment. Only a few lines away, at 1.5.4, LYV 3.1.99, was cited: videhamukto nodeti nstam eti na myati | na san nsan na drastho na cha na ca netara || [1.5.4; LYV 3.1.99] The bodiless-liberated neither rises nor sets, nor does he rest. He is neither existent nor non-existent; neither is he distant and not (near);6 neither I nor the other. Liberation-in-life and bodiless-liberation are equal for Vidyraya to the extent that the person liberated-in-life has an increasing abundance of "no-distinctions" (nirvikalptiaya). [1.5.7] I believe this is an important semantic distinction brought out in the editing of the text that may have philosophical importance for its interpretation. Given this different reading of the text, liberation-in-life is equivalent to bodiless-liberation when the yogin is in nirvikalpa. Vidyraya is not explicit about what he means by nirvikalpa. He may mean nirvikalpapratyaka or nirvikalpajna, which is "indeterminate perception" and "indeterminate knowledge" of the Nyya philosophy. However, because the JMV has a great deal to do with yoga, we may also take it as nirvikalpasamdhi, the "enstasis-without-distinctions." In this state the agent of perception, the instrument of perception, and the object of perception disappear, and there is no longer a sense of being a separate individual, nor any "experience" at all. There is "no one there," which psychologically may be equal to death. Therefore we may interpret this statement to say that because there can be an increasing abundance of nirvikalpasamdhi, the embodied yogin can psychologically disappear to a greater or lesser degree. Thus when the body finally dies, there is no

32

one there to die, and therefore the liberation-in-life is already essentially equal to liberation after the death of the body. To show how this may be possible, Vidyraya must deal with the problem of "operative action" (prrabdhakarma).7 Operative, or "commenced," action is action that brought one's current life into existence and has already begun to produce its result, which is the continuation of the body. "Uncommenced action"

(anrabdhakarma), on the other hand, is action that is simply waiting its turn to bear fruit. Actions are so numerous that they cannot operate simultaneously but only sequentially. Even after the advent of the liberating knowledge, the operative action continues and the knower lives it through until the death of the body, whereupon he attains the bodiless-liberation. This notion is commonly expressed in the metaphors of the arrow already in flight, or the spinning of the potter's wheel.8 Thus the liberation-in-life in the current physical body is a liberation within the confines of operative action that continues to sustain the body for a time. The presence of operative action in one liberated-in-life remained an elusive problem for the Advaitin thinkers before Vidyraya, though they still accepted liberation-in-life.9 How can one be said to be truly liberated-in-life by means of the realization of the knowledge of truth alone when operative action still continues to sustain the body? Does it not still present an obstacle to the knower's freedom?

Vidyraya attempts a novel solution to this problem by defining the word "body" in bodiless-liberation to mean only the "subtle body" (sukmadeha, ligadeha) or "future body" (bhvideha)10 [2.3.4875]. Knowledge is the principal means for the removal of bondage, and bodiless-liberation arises simultaneously with knowledge. After 33

equating the yogic goal of "perfect isolation" (kaivalya) with bodiless-liberation, Vidyraya then says that there is no perfect isolation for those who have not studied the authoritative texts on knowledge "because the subtle body has not passed away" [2.3.39]. The individual knower will not achieve bodiless-liberation upon the death of his current physical, gross body, for the subtle body will produce a new gross body into which his soul (jva) will be reborn. We must remember in this context the way in which the Mkya Upaniad [GK 1.14] analyzes the four states of consciousness: waking (jgaraa), dreaming (svapna), deep sleep (suupti), and the Fourth (turya). Consciousness is conceived of in its individual/microcosmic (vyai) and comprehensive/macrocosmic (saai) aspects. Prja is the individual/microcosmic soul in the deep sleep state. It is conditioned by ignorance (avidy). vara is the comprehensive/macrocosmic soul in the deep sleep state. It is conditioned by illusion (my). The two aspects of the waking state are called viva and vaivnara. The two aspects of the dreaming state are called taijasa and hirayagarbha. Consciousness is also conceived of as being experienced in a different body in each state: In the waking state, experience takes place in the gross body (sthla deha); in the dreaming state, in the subtle body (sukmadeha, ligadeha); in deep sleep, the causal body (kraadeha). The bodilessliberated man has neither the individual/microcosmic aspect nor the

comprehensive/macrocosmic aspect. This is the Fourth state, or turya, in which there is no distinction between these two aspects. Though Vidyraya does not explicitly state it in the JMV, I suspect that he maintains here that the subtle body contains the seeds of future actions and thus leads 34

to rebirth. Vidyraya was probably aware of akara's treatment of the subtle body in BSBh 3.1.1. Here akara discusses how the soul departs from the body and takes a new one, citing the caterpillar analogy from BU 4.4.3. The soul, still surrounded by the subtle elements, must experience thoughts regarding the future body, for it has its attention turned to past action. It lengthens to the next body like the caterpillar reaches from blade of grass to another.11 Thus for a time the soul in the subtle body, existing in the dreaming state of consciousness, forms the final vsan, or latent tendency, of the former birth, which contains the conception for the future body; mentally attaches to it; and leads the soul into rebirth in a new physical body. Although Vidyraya does not refer to this explanation, at 2.3.55 he speaks of the future body (bhvideha) interchangeably with the subtle body. I believe that for Vidyraya the subtle body is the same as or connected with the future body, and the subtle body contains the potential for generating future births. Thus with the liberating knowledge of the Self, the knower will be freed from future births, for their potential contained in the subtle body is removed by this knowledge. Earlier on, Vidyraya interprets the statement in KU 5.1, which says ". . . and freed from it, he is set free," to mean that