________________
136 Madhva's Interpretation of the Brahma-sūtras [CH. said to allude to Katha, II. 4. 13, and Madhva holds that the word "Lord” (Isvara), there used, signifies not air, but Vişnu. Sankara, however, thinks that the difficulty is with regard to another word of the sentence, viz., puruşa, which according to him means Isvara and not jīva. The eighth topic purports to establish that even the gods are entitled to higher knowledge. The tenth topic is said to allude to Katha, 11. 6. 2, and it is held that the prāna, which is there referred to as shaking the world, is neither thunder nor wind, but God. The eleventh topic, according to Madhva, alludes to Brhadāranyaka, iv. 3. 7, and it is held that the word jyotih used there refers to Vişņu and not to Jiva. Sankara, however, thinks that the topic alludes to Chāndogya, VIII. 12. 3, and maintains that the word jyotih used there means Brahman and not the disc of the Sun. The twelfth topic is said to allude to Chāndogya, viii. 14. 1, and ākāša, as there used, is said to refer to Vişnu according to Madhva and to Brahman according to Sankara. The thirteenth topic, according to Madhva, alludes to BỊhad-āranyaka, iv. 3. 15, and it is held that asanga ("untouched”) in this passage refers to Vişnu and not to Jiva. Sankara, however, thinks that the allusion is to Brhadāranyaka, IV. 3. 7, and that vijñānamaya("of the nature of consciousness") refers to Brahman and not to Jiva.
The fourth chapter of the first book is divided into seven topics. Of these the first topic discusses the possible meaning of avyakta in Katha, 1. 3. 11, and Sankara holds that it means "human body," while Madhva says that it means Vişnu and not the prakrti of the Sāmkhyal. The second topic, containing three sūtras, is supposed to allude to Svetāśvatara, iv. 5, according to Sankara, who holds that it refers to the material principles of fire, water and earth and not to
The word avyakta, ordinarily used to denote prakti on account of its subtleness of nature, can very aptly be used to denote Brahman, who is the subtlest of all and who by virtue of that subtlety is the ultimate support (āśraya) of prakyti. Sankara's interpretation of avyakta as the subtle material causes of the body is untenable; for, if the direct meaning of avyakta is forsaken, then there is nothing to object to in its referring to the prakrti of the Sāmkhya. The supposed Sāmkhya argument—that the assertion contained in the passage under discussion (that avyakta is superior (parā) to mahat and puruşa is superior to argakta) can be true only if by avyakta prakyti is meant here-is not true; for since all qualities of prakrti are dependent on God, attributes which could be applied to prakyti could also be applied to God its master (pradhānādigata-parāvaratvādi-dharmāņām bhagavad-adhinatvāt). Tāttva-prakāśikā, p. 57.
In this topic the sūtra, vadatīti cen na prājño hi prakaranāt (1. 4. 5), as read by Sankara, is split up by Madhva into two sūtras, vadatiti cen na prājño hi and prakaraņāt, which are counted as I. 4. 5 and 1. 4. 6 respectively.
