________________
132
Madhva's Interpretation of the Brahma-sutras [CH.
number of other passages occurring in the Aitareya, where the word prāṇa occurs, and holds that textual comparisons show that the word in those passages refers to Visnu and not to ordinary air currents, or souls, etc.
The second chapter of the first book has altogether seven topics or subjects of discussion according to both Sankara and Madhva. On the first topic Madhva, referring to certain Vedic passages, seeks to establish that they refer to Nārāyaṇa as the culmination of the fullness of all qualities1. Though He is capable of rousing all the powers of all objects even from a distance, yet He in a sportive way (lilaya) is present everywhere and presides over the budding energies of all objects. It is further pointed out that the succeeding passages distinguish the all-pervading Brahman from jivas, or souls, by putting the former in the accusative and the latter in the nominative case in such a way that there ought not to be any doubt that the references to the qualities of all-pervadingness, etc., are to Brahman and not to the jivas2. Sankara, however, refers to an altogether different text (Chandogya, III. 14. 1) as hinted at by the topic and concludes, after a discussion of textual comparisons, that the passage alludes to Isvara and not to jiva. On the second topic Madhva raises with reference to Bṛhad-aranyaka, 1. 2. 5, the doubt whether the "eats" (atti) refers to the destructive agency of Visņu or of Aditi, and decides in favour of the former, and states that Visnu is also often called by the name Aditi3. Sankara, how
2 Ibid.
1 Aitareya-Aranyaka, III. 2. 3.
3 Some interesting points on this topic are here noted by Jaya-tirtha in his Nyāya-sudha on the Amuvyākhyāna. Thus Jaya-tirtha says that an objection may be made that God, being the producer and the destroyer of the universe, is consequently eternal, but actions (kriya) are non-eternal: and how then can the two contradictory qualities reside in God (nityānityayoḥ katham abhedaḥ syāt)? The answer to the objection is that even actions in God are static (na kevalam isvaraḥ sthiraḥ api tu sa tadīya-višeṣa-dharmo'pi kṛyā-rūpaḥ sthirah); and this is not impossible, since there is no proof that all actions must be of a vibratory (parişpanda) nature (which may not exist in God). Again, there can be no objection to admitting vibrations to be eternally existing in God. As motion or action can as a result of continuous existence for many moments produce contacts and so forth, so eternally existing motion or action could produce contacts and separations at particular moments (yatha aneka-kāla-vartiny api kriyā kadācit samyogādi ārabhate na yavat sattvam, tatha nityapi kadacit samyogady arabhatām ko virodhaḥ). All actions exist eternally in God in potential form as sakti, and it is only when this is actualized (vyakti) that real transformations of energy and performance of work happen (sakti-rupena sthiraḥ sa yadā vyajyate, tadā vyavahārālambanam); actuality is but a condition or special state of potential power (vyaktiśabdena śakter eva avasthāviseṣasya vivakṣitatvāt). In this connection Java-tirtha
