110 R. Psychological Tciiets of the Vaislmavas. [No, 1, 
ditioned’ and ‘ unconditioned,’ but tliey are not exactly to the point. Un¬ 
conditioned in English has two meanings. Some employ it to denote 
entire absence of all restrictions, while others, and a large number, take 
it to imply entire absence of all relation. Indian philosophers are una¬ 
nimously of opinion that the Supreme Soul is absolutely unconditioned 
in the sense of total absence of all restrictions. It is perfectly free from 
all trammels of laws, rules and and conditions, and nothing can restrict it 
in any sense whatever. But they are divided as regards relation. The 
followers of the Yoora school hold that there is no relation whatever be- 
o 
tween the Supreme Soul and the universe. The universe is uncreate and 
eternal, and its course is regulated by laws or nature which is not subject 
to Divine will, and human souls, being uncreate and eternal, are equally 
independent of a creator. But those monitists who believe in a primal 
creation and trace that creation to a divine architect, have to establish a 
relation between the Divine and the individual souls, and opinions in this 
respect vary greatly. Their diverse theories about emancipation also neces¬ 
sitate some relation. The doctrine of incarnation also requires that the Divi¬ 
nity should be, at least at times, subject to conditions. And the process of 
transition from the unconditioned to the conditioned has been explained 
in different ways. The word saguna, moreover, implies personality, and 
some of those who believe in incarnations insist upon the Godhead being 
a personal divinity, while others hold him to be always and invariably 
impersonal (jiirgunaf 
To turn now to the Yaishnavas. They belong to one or other of 
the three subdivisions of the Adual school or to the Dual one, under the 
generic names of S'ri-sampradaya, Budra-sampradaya, Brahma-sampradaya, 
and Sanakadi-sampradaya, and the reconciliation of their different 
theories to subserve the cause of Bhakti is the object of the work under 
notice. 
The work opens with a quotation from the Bhagavata Purana in 
which Krishna says “ know ye that I am the preceptor of all preceptors ” 
(Sarveshdm agjy dchdrydndni dchdryam mdm vijdniydt), and then argues, 
since preceptors (dchdryas) are incarnations of the Lord, and their in¬ 
structions must be evidence of truth, it follows that when Yallabha 
Acharya and others, after refuting the Dual dogma, establish the 
Nondual one, their doctrine must be accepted as true ; but in so accepting 
it, one must reject the theory of Madhva as unreliable and untrue. Should 
he, however, accept the theory of Madhva, the sayings of Yallabha 
Acharya and others, which refute the Dual tenet, must of course fall to 
the ground. ‘ And on the logical principle of that which is contradictory 
is incorrect,’ all the various doctrines of the Yaishnavas must be con¬ 
demned as untrue. The question then is, how to solve this riddle ? And 
