________________
xx] Rangācārya
395 by the knowledge of Brahman, the real, there would be the knowledge of all illusory and unreal creation, for these two, the reality and the appearance, are entirely different and therefore by the knowledge of one there cannot be the knowledge of the other. In the Višiştādvaita view it may be said that when God as associated with his subtle body, the subtle causal nature of the souls and the material world, is known the knowledge of God as associated with the grosser development of His body as souls and the world is also by that means realizedł.
In performing the actions it need not be supposed that the eternal soul undergoes any transformation, for the individual soul may remain identically unchanged in itself and yet undergo transformation so far as the process of its knowledge is concerned. In the Višistādvaita view, will and desire are regarded as but modes of knowledge and as such the psychological transformations of the mind involved in the performance of actions have reference only to knowledge. It has already been shown that possibly knowledge in its essential form is unchangeable and yet unchangeable so far as its nature as process is concerned. Such an activity and performance of actions belongs naturally to the individual souls.
The Virodha-nirodha is written in twenty-seven chapters, but most of these are devoted to the refutation of objections raised by opponents on questions of theological dogma which have no philosophical interest. These have therefore been left out in this book.
Rangācārya. A follower of Sankara named Umā-Maheśvara wrote a work named Virodha-varüthini in which he proposed to show one hundred contradictions in Rāmānuja's bhāsya and other cognate
sūksma-cid-acic-charirake brahmani jñāte sthūla-cid-acic-charirakasya tasya jñānam utra' bhiniatam. Virodha-nirodha. MS.
2 iha prayatnāder buddhi-visesa-rüpatayā kāryā-nuküla-krtimattvasyā'pi kartytuasya jñāna-riseşa-rūpatayā tasya svābhāvikatayā tad-ātmanā jīvasya jñānasya nityatve'pi tat-pariņāma-višeşasya anityatvāc ca. Ibid. 3 "sri-rāmānuja-yogi-pāda-kamala-sthānā-bhişe kam gato jīyāt so'yam
ananta-puruşa-guru-simhāsanā-dhiśvarah śrī-rarga-sūriḥ śrisaile tasya simhāsane sthitaḥ
K1-drsti-dheanta-mărtandam prakāśayati samprati." He was thus a disciple of Anantārya of the middle of the nineteenth century. At the end of his San-mārga-dipa he says that it was written in refutation of Rāma Miśra's work on the subject. Rāma Miśra lived late in the nineteenth century and wrote Sneha-pürti.
