वेदान्त पारिजात सौरभ (भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य - द्वैताद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

[sū. 1. 4. 18. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 247 this vital-breath alone he becomes one’ (Kaus. 3.3; 4.20), one of these two is to be understood, and not the Supreme Soul,— (We reply) “that has been explained” in the sub-section, begin- ning with the aphorism: ‘The vital-breath, on account of intelligi- bility in that way’ (Br. Sū. 1.1.29). There, the text being ascer- tained to have Brahman for its object on the ground of the beginning and the end, the marks of the individual soul and the rest, too, have been described as referring to Him alone. In the very same manner, here, too, in the beginning, in the passage: ‘ “Let me declare Brahman to you”’ (Kaus. 4.1), Brahman is mentioned as the object. In the middle, too, in the text: ‘ “Of whom this is the work”’ (Kaus. 4.19), Brahman is mentioned as the agent of the ‘work’ or the entire universe. The end as well refers to none but Brahman, since the text: ‘He who knows thus, having overcome all evils, attains supremacy, independent rule and lordship among all beings’ (Kauṣ. 4.20), declares that excellent results pertain to His worshippers. Thus, this text being ascertained to be referring to Brahman, the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the rest, too, are to be taken as referring to Him. And, it is not to be said that there is any repetition here (of what has already been said under Br. Sū. 1.1.29–32), since that section about Pratardana does not determine the meaning of the text: ‘Of whom this is the work’ (Kaus. 4.19), which the present section does. COMPARISON Bhāskara Reading different, viz. he reads this sūtra and the next one as one sūtra.¹ ————— SŪTRA 18 “BUT JAIMINI (THINKS THAT THE MENTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL) HAS A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, ON ACCOUNT OF QUESTION AND EXPLANATION, AND THUS SOME (READ).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Jaimini thinks that the mention of the individual soul in this section has the purpose of suggesting Brahman, other than the ————— ¹ Bh. B. 1.1.17, p. 78.

[sū. 1. 4. 18. 248 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5 ] individual soul, on account of the question: " 'Where, O Bālāki, did this person lie? What did he become? Whence did he come back?' " (Kauṣ. 4 19 ¹), and on account of the reply. " 'When the sleeping person sees no dreams whatsoever, then in this vital-breath alone he becomes one' " (Kauṣ. 4 19 ²). The Vājasaneyins, too, thus record the Supreme Soul as other than the individual soul. There too, there are question and answer. The question is: " 'What did he then be- come? Whence did he return?' " (Bṛh. 2.1 16 ³), and the answer is: " 'That which is this ether within the heart, in that he lies' " (Bṛh. 2 1 17 ⁴). Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. since in the text 'In this vital-breath alone he becomes one' (Kauṣ. 4.19), entering by the individual soul is mentioned, and since the term 'vital-breath' is applied to Brahman, who alone is fit to be the substratum of the individual soul's entering, let the characteristic marks of the vital-breath refer to Brahman. But it seems very difficult to take the characteristic marks of the individual soul as referring to Brahman, since here in the passage: 'They two went to a sleeping person' (Kauṣ. 4.19), the exclusive mark of an individual soul is found,—the author replies here. The teacher Jaimini thinks that the mention of the individual soul in this section "has a different purpose", viz. the purpose of demonstrating that the Supreme Soul,—possessed of the qualities of being a support and the rest,—is different from the individual soul, possessed of the qualities of 'being the object to be supported', etc. Why? "On account of question and explanation." Thus, Ajāta- śatru, a knower of Brahman, approached a sleeping person with Bālāki, desirous of enquiring into Brahman, and called that person thus: " 'O Soma, the king' " (Kauṣ. 4 19). But when the sleeper did not hear him, Ajātaśatru thereby demonstrated the fact that enjoyer is different from the vital-breath and the rest which are not enjoyers. After that, when the sentient soul, different from those non- sentient, was awakened by the push of the stick, Ajātaśatru himself asked the following questions with a view to demonstrating Brahman once more as different from the sentient and the non-sentient: ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Op. cit. ³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ⁴ Op. cit.

[sū. 1. 4. 18. ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 249 ' "Where, O Bālāki, did this person lie ? What, verily, did he become ? Whence did he return"?' (Kaus 4.19). As Bālāki was unable to answer the question, Ajātaśatru himself replied. ' "When the sleeping person sees no dream whatsoever, then in this vital-breath alone he becomes one ; when he wakes up, . . . then from this soul all the vital-breaths proceed, each towards its place, from the vital-breaths the gods, from the gods the worlds" ' (Kaus. 4.20). On account of such question and answer the Supreme Soul, different from the individual soul, is to be understood here. The sense is this : During the period of deep sleep, the soul, having drawn forth the whole group sense-organs, and having entered into the Supreme Soul,—denoted by the term 'vital-breath' which stands in apposition with the pronoun 'this' in the text: 'In this vital-breath' (Kaus 4.19),—becomes self-abiding and tranquil. Then, when time comes, it goes out from that very vital-breath for undergoing retributive experiences. This Supreme Soul, celebrated to be the substratum of deep sleep ¹ and the rest, and different from the individual soul, is the object to be known,—such is the view of Jaimini as well. The mention of Jaimini is for the purpose of clearly indicating that the meaning stated above by us is highly commendable. "And thus some", i.e the Vājasaneyins designate the Supreme Soul as different from the individual soul, consisting of intelligence. There, too, a dialogue between Bālāki and Ajātaśatru has been intro- duced, containing a question and an answer. The question is: ' "He who consists of intelligence, what did he become then? Whence did he come ?"' (Brh. 2.1.16); and the answer is: ' "That which is the ether within the heart, in that he lies"' (Brh. 2 1.17 ²). That the ether is the Supreme Soul has been established under the section, concerned with the text: 'Small is the ether within that' (Chānd. 8.1.1 ³). This difference between the individual soul and the Lord has been demonstrated before by the author of the aphorisms in many aphorisms like: 'And on account of the designation of difference' (Br. Sū 1.1.18 ⁴), etc. Incidentally it is confirmed here too as being ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 3.2 7. ² The Bālāki Ajātaśatru-samvāda in Brh. 2.1 is exactly similar to that in Kaus 4, only the latter makes no mention of the ether. ³ Vide Dahara-adhikarana, Br. Sū. 1.3.14-24. ⁴ Vide also Br Sū. 1.1.22, 1 2.4, 1 2 21, 1.2.23, 1.3 5, etc. (The num- bering is Nimbārka's.)

[SŪ. 1. 4. 18. 250 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] held by Jaimini as well, with the words. “But Jaimini (thinks that the mention of the individual soul has a different purpose”. With a view to showing that it is confirmed all the more strongly as being based on the Veda, it is said “On account of question and explana- tion”, and for suggesting that it is celebrated in all the Upaniṣads, it is said “and thus some” The non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman, too, has been mentioned before,¹ and we shall speak of it carefully later on.² Hence, none but the Supreme Soul is taught as the object to be known. It is established that He alone is the cause of the origin and the rest of the universe, and not puruṣa, established in the Tantra, or pradhāna, superintended by it. Here ends the section entitled ‘Denoting the world’ (5). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara General import same, only while Nimbārka, as before, connects this adhikaraṇa more directly with the topic of the preceding part of the pāda, viz. refutation of the Sāṁkhya view, Śaṁkara and Bhāskara do not do so, but take it to be concerned with the general question of the concordance of all texts with regard to Brahman.³ Śrīkaṇṭha General import same, but he too does not take this adhikaraṇa as concerned with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, but with the question of the difference between the individual soul and Brah- man.⁴ Hence according to him, the problem here is whether the ¹ Vide V.K. 1.1 1, p. 11, 1.1 7, p. 25, 1.2.6, p 52, etc. (Page references are to the K.S.S. ed.) ² Vide e.g. VK 1.4.20, p. 139, 1.4.21, p. 140, 2.1.16, p. 151, etc. (K.S.S. ed.) ³ This is evident from the fact that while according to Nimbārka the question is whether in Kauṣ. 4.19 the object to be known is the Sāṁkhya puruṣa or the Supreme Soul (vide V.P S. 1.3.16), according to Śaṁkara and Bhāskara, the question is whether in the same text the object to be known is the vital-breath or the Supreme Soul. Vide Ś.B. 1.4.16, p. 418; Bh. B. 1.4.16, p. 78. ⁴ Punar api jīvāt parameśvarasya anya-bhāvam upapādayati. ŚK. B. 1.4.16, Intro., p. 535, Part 6.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 19. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 251 object to be known in Kauṣītaki text (4.19) is the individual soul or the Supreme Soul, and so on ¹ Adhikaraṇa 6. The section entitled ‘The con- nection of texts’ (Sūtras 19–22) SŪTRA 19 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONNECTION OF TEXTS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text. ‘ “O! the self, verily, should be seen” ’ (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6 ²), the Supreme Soul should be understood as the object to be seen, “on account of the connection” of the text with Him alone. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, by showing once more the concordance of the scriptural texts with regard to Brahman, the author is disposing of puruṣa, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas. We find the following text in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka under the Maitreyī-brāhmaṇa, beginning: ‘He said: “O, not for the love of the husband, verily, is a husband dear, but for the love of the soul is a husband dear” ’ (Bṛh 2.4.5; 4.5.6), and continuing : ‘ “O, the self, verily, should be seen, should be heard, should be meditated on” ’ (Bṛh 2.4.5; 4.5.6). Here the doubt is, viz. whether the soul, the twenty-fifth principle of the Sāṁkhyas, is taught as the object to be seen, or the Highest Person, Lord Vāsudeva? What is reasonable here? The prima facie objector thinks: The soul, the twenty-fifth principle established by the Tantra, is taught as the object to be seen and so on, as it is possible for it alone to be the object of the acts of perception and the rest, as it is impossible for Brahman, admitted by the defendant, to be properly an object of an act, He being unlimited by so muchness; as the connection of the Self with the dearness of husband, wife, son and the rest, mentioned in the beginning, is possible on the part of only puruṣa, mentioned by the Tantra; as in the middle, too, in the text : ‘ “This great Being, infinite and endless, is but a ¹ Op. cit., pp. 536 et seq. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1 4. 19. 252 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.] mass of intelligence Having risen from those elements, one vanishes into them alone. After death, there is no consciousness"' (Brh. 2.4 12, 4.5.13), purusa is laid down as subject to transmigratory existence as connected with origin and destruction—purusa, which is mentioned in the Tantra, the very one, which dwells within the body as indicated by the word 'this', which is indicated by the word 'great being' with a view to making its distinction from the material beings clear, which is indicated by the word 'infinite' with a view to making its illimitable- ness in time clear, which is endless, i.e innumerable, and which is a mass of intelligence, and as, finally, towards the end as well, the text. '"O, whereby one should know the knower"?' (Brh 2.4.14; 4.5.15), declares it to be a knower. With regard to it, we point out the right conclusion None but the Highest Person is here taught as the object to be seen and so on. Why? Because the text has connection with the Supreme Soul alone, i.e because from a consideration of the beginning and the end, the connection of the group of texts, intending to convey the same meaning, as referring to the Supreme Soul is known Thus, when from Yājñavalkya's statement, viz. '"Of immortality, however, there is no hope through wealth"' (Brh. 2 4.2; 4 5 3). Maitreyī came to know definitely that work, to be accomplished by means of wealth, is not a means to salvation,—as well-known from other scriptural texts too, viz. 'Frail indeed are these boats of sacrifices' (Mund 1 2 7), 'What is not made is not gained through what is made' (Mund. 1.2.12) and so on,—she, desiring for salvation, asked about the means to salvation, thus. '"What shall I do with that whereby I may not be immortal? Whatever, Sir, you know, tell me that"' (Brh. 2 4.3; 4.5 4) Thus asked, Yājñavalkya taught the Supreme Soul alone, the soul of all, as the object of the acts of seeing and the rest, thus. '"O, the self, verily, should be seen"' (Brh. 2.4.3, 4.5.4), salvation being possible through the meditation on Him alone. The knowledge of all, too, is possible through the knowledge of Him. In the end, too, the attribute of 'being the self of all', mentioned in the passage '"All this is the soul"' (Brh 2.4.6, 4.5.7), is a charac- teristic mark of the Supreme Soul alone.

[sū. 1. 4. 20. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 253 SŪTRA 20 "(THE BEGINNING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS) A MARK OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INITIAL PROPOSITION, ĀŚMARATHYA (THINKS SO) " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha To the question. Why, then, is there the beginning with the individual soul? we reply the fact that the Supreme Soul is designated by a word denoting the individual soul,—the latter being non-different from the former as His effect,—is a convincing proof "of the estab- lishment of the initial proposition", viz that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all. So "Āśmarathya" thinks. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected. The individual soul alone is apprehended as connected with the dearness of husband and the rest in the beginning, in the passage. ‘"O, not for the love of the husband, verily, is a husband dear, but for the love of the soul is a husband dear’" (Bṛh 2 4.5, 4.5.6) and so on; as well as connected with origin and destruction in the middle, in the passage: ‘"Having arisen from these beings, one vanishes into them alone. After death there is no consciousness’" (Bṛh. 2 4 12; 4.5.13),— (We reply:) True. Still, by the term "individual soul" the Supreme Soul is to be understood here. No such objection can be raised in view of the fact that He, being the cause of all, can be denoted by all words The author is showing this with the approval of another teacher In accordance with the text ‘From whom, verily, all these elements arise’ (Tait 3.1), the individual soul, too, entered into the elements, is reckoned among the effects, and Brahman is the cause. These two being the effect and the cause, there is, undoubtedly, a primary difference between them. Thus the texts designating duality are correct Since the effect is non-different from the cause, being born from it and so on, non-difference between the two, too, is equally a fact. Thus, the texts designating non-duality, too, are correct. In this way, both the kinds of texts being authoritative in their own senses, there is a natural relation of difference and non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman. Hence, it is possible for words denoting the effects to denote the causes as well, just as in the

[SŪ. 1. 4. 21. 254 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 6.] case of the pot and the clay, standing in the relation of effect and cause, the word 'pot' refers to the clay as well. This being so, the initial proposition too, viz. that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all, is established,—such is the view of Āśmarathya. The meaning of the words of the aphorism is as follows. This, really, is "a mark" or a convincing proof "of the establishment of the initial proposition", viz. that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all. What mark? Listen ¹ The individual soul being non-different from the Supreme Soul as His effect, by the word "individual soul" the Supreme Soul is designated,—so the teacher Āśmarathya thinks SŪTRA 21 "ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH A CONDITION OF ONE WHO IS ABOUT TO DEPART, AUḌULOMI (THINKS SO)" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On account of the union of the individual soul, about to depart from the body, with Brahman, Brahman is denoted by a word denoting the individual soul,—so Auḍulomi thinks. Vedānta-kaustubha "On account of such a condition," i e. on account of the union of the individual soul with the Supreme Soul,—of the soul which "is about to depart" from the aggregation of the body and the sense- organs, in accordance with the text: 'As the flowing rivers disappear into the sea, leaving names and forms, so a knower, freed from name and form, attains the celestial Person, higher than the high' (Chānd. 8.3.4), which is endowed with the hearing, the thinking, the meditation and the direct vision of Brahman; and which is well-known to be unborn from the scriptural and Smṛti texts like. 'A wise man is neither born, nor dies' (Kaṭha 2.18), 'This is unborn, eternal, constant' (Gītā 2.20), i.e. on account of its attaining the state of Brahman, the Supreme Soul is denoted by a term denoting the individual soul,—so thinks the teacher Auḍulomi. On this view, there is a difference between the individual soul and Brahman during the soul's state of bondage, and non-difference during its state of

[SŪ. 1. 4. 22. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 255 release. In this manner, there are both difference and non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman. Thus, the meaning of the text is difference and non-difference,—such is the view of the teacher Auḍulomi. Such difference and non-difference are admitted by the reverend Auḍulomi for the benefit of the dull-witted. But really even during the state of bondage, the individual soul, which is atomic in size and possesses little knowledge, though different from Brahman who is all-pervasive, non-deviating in nature and omniscient, is yet non-different from Him, since it has no separate existence and activity,—just as a leaf is non-different from the tree, the ray from the lamp, the attribute from its substratum and the sense-organs from the vital-breath. Likewise, though in release it is non-different from Him, it having no separate existence and activity, at the same time, it is undoubtedly different from Him, in accordance with the text: ‘It is completed in its own form alone’ ¹ (Chānd. 8.3.4). Otherwise, the imperishableness of the respective natures of both must come to be jeopardized. The view of Āśmarathya, too, should be known to be the same. COMPARISON The commentators give different meanings of the word ‘evaṁ bhāvāt’. According to Śaṁkara and Bhāskara it means ‘on account of attaining identity with the Supreme Soul’; ² according to Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha, ‘on account of attaining the state of the Supreme Soul’; ³ and according to Baladeva, ‘on account of becoming dear to all, etc.’ ⁴ SŪTRA 22 “ON ACCOUNT OF ABIDING, SO KĀŚAKRTSNA.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “On account of the abiding” of the Supreme Lord,—celebrated in the passage: ‘Entered within, the ruler of men’ (Tait. Ār. 3.11.1, 2 ⁵) 1 ‘Eva’ is not included in the original text. Vide Chānd. 8.3 4, p. 421. 2 ‘Paramātmaikyopapatteḥ.’ Ś B. 1.4.21, p. 425, Bh. B. 1.4.21, p. 81. 3 ‘Paramātma-bhāvāt.’ Śrī. B 1.4.21, p. 394, Part 1, Madras ed. Śk. B. 1.4.21, p. 549, Part 6. 4 G B 1.4.21 5 P. 181. R.

[sū. 1. 4. 22. 256 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.] and so on,—in the individual soul as the controller, in the beginning and in what follows, by a term denoting the object to be controlled the controller is understood—so thinks Kāśakrtsna. Vedānta-kaustubha "On account of the abiding" of the Supreme Soul in the individual soul,—an object to be controlled by Him,—as its soul, in accordance with the texts: 'He who abiding in the soul is other than the soul, whom the soul does not know, of whom the soul is the body, who rules the soul within, he is your soul, the inner controller, immortal' (Śat Br. 14.6.7, 30 ¹), 'Entered within, the ruler of men, the soul of all' (Tait. Ār. 3.11 2), by a term denoting the individual soul, the Supreme Soul is denoted,—so thinks the teacher Kāśakrtsna, a knower of the object controlled, as well as of the controller Thus, by means of the views of the three sages, the nature of difference and non-difference has been incidentally shown by his Holiness. And with a view to removing the contradiction among the scriptural texts by his own theory, he will clearly prove the natural relation of difference-non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman in the aphorisms 'A part, on account of the designation of variety' (Br Sū. 2.3.42) and so on. Here, the word 'soul' in the beginning refers to the Supreme Soul alone The worship of that very Supreme Soul is designated as a means to salvation in the passage " 'O, the soul, verily" ' (Brh. 2 4.5, 4 5 6) and so on. The text 'Having arisen from these beings, one vanishes into them alone' (Bṛh. 24 12, 4.5.13), indicates trans- migratory existence pertaining to one who is averse to the Supreme Soul, and the text: 'There is no consciousness after death' (Brh 2.4.12; 4.5.13) indicates salvation pertaining to His worshipper. Hence, it is established that the texts of the Maitreyī-brāhmaṇa all agree in referring to Brahman, different and non-different from the sentient and the non-sentient, the cause of all, to be approached by the freed and the controller of all Here ends the section entitled 'The connection of texts' (6) 1 P. 1074, line 18.

[sū. 1. 4. 23. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 257 COMPARISON Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha Here too, as before, the general import is the same, but while Nimbārka ¹ takes this adhikarana to be connected more directly with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrī- kaṇṭha do not. Further, Śaṁkara and Bhāskara interpret the word ‘avasthiteḥ’ differently. To them, it means ‘because of (Brah- man’s) abiding as the individual soul’ (vijñātmā-bhāvena) ². Adhikaraṇa 7. The section entitled ‘The material cause’. (Sūtras 23–27) SŪTRA 23 “(BRAHMAN IS) THE MATERIAL CAUSE, AND (THE EFFICIENT CAUSE), ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT WITH REGARD TO THE INITIAL PROPOSITION AND THE ILLUSTRATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “The material cause,” as well as the efficient cause,—indicated by the particle “and” (in the sūtra),—is none but the Supreme Soul, because then alone the initial proposition: ‘“Did you ask for that in- struction whereby the unheard becomes heard, the unthought becomes thought, the unknown becomes known ?”’ (Chānd. 6.1.3 ³), as well as the illustration: ‘“Just as, my dear, through a lump of clay, all objects made of clay may be known”’ (Chānd. 6.1.4 ⁴) are explicable. Vedānta-kaustubha Having thus refuted the atheistic school of the Sāṁkhyas, now the author, by refuting the theistic school of the Sāṁkhyas, is confirm- ing the view, mentioned above, that the Lord is the non-different material and efficient cause of the world. It may be objected that, properly, this section ought to have been inserted immediately after the aphorism: ‘From whom (arise)

¹ Vide V.K. 1.4.11, p. 137, Kāsī ed. ² Ś.B. 1 4 21, p. 426; Bh. B. 1.4.21, p 81. ³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ⁴ Op. cit. 17

[SŪ. 1. 4. 23. 258 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] the origin and the rest of this’ (Br. Sū. 1.1.2), demonstrating the characteristic marks of Brahman, establishing the nature of the cause of the world. (To this we reply). No. One sees its appropriateness here indeed. Thus, on the enquiry: viz Of what mark is Brahman? with regard to the injunction, viz. ‘An enquiry into Brahman should be undertaken’,—the mark of Brahman was stated in the aphorism ‘From whom (arise) the origin and the rest of this’ (Br. Sū. 1.1.2). There it was certainly established, on the ground of scriptural and Smṛti texts, that Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause. After that, there being no enquiry as to whether He is only the material cause, or only the efficient cause, the topic was not further amplified But there those who take everything to be the transformation of prakṛti (and take Brahman to be the efficient cause only) are being refuted separately. Thus, some theistic Sāṁkhyas hold: In the world of ordinary experience, sentient beings like potters and the rest are found to be the efficient cause alone, and not the material cause. In the passages: ‘He thought’ (Bṛh. 1.2.5 ; Ait 1.1), ‘He thought’ (Praśna 6.3), creation is said to be preceded by thinking. Hence let the Supreme Lord, the thinker, be, somehow or other, only the efficient cause of the world: but the material cause of mahat and the rest is nothing but pradhāna, superintended by Him, just as clay is the material cause of pots and the like, in accordance with the text: ‘He thinks of her who is the mother of all changes, non-knowing, having eight forms, and eternal. Ruled by him she manifests herself; again incited and superintended by him alone ¹ she gives birth to the world for the benefit of the soul. She is a cow, without beginning and end, the progenitress, the source of all beings’ (Cūl. 3b–5a ²). With regard to it, we reply. Brahman alone is ‘prakṛti’, i.e. the material cause of the world, as well as its efficient cause, indicated by the particle “and” (in the sūtra). Why? “On account of the absence of conflict with regard to the initial proposition and illus- tration,” i.e. on account of the non-contradiction or consistency of ¹ Incorrect, ought to be ‘adhyāsitā, which is translated here. ² Reading different, viz.: ‘Vikāra-jananīm māyām aṣṭa-rūpām dhruvām Dhyāyate adhyāsitā tena tanyate preritā punaḥ. Stūyate puruṣārthañ ca tenaivādhiṣṭhitā purā Gaur anādyavatī sā tu janitrī bhūta-bhāvinī’. Vide Cūl. 3–5, p. 230.

[sū. 1. 4. 23. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 259 the initial proposition and the illustration. The initial proposition, to begin with, is as follows: '"Did you ask for that instruction whereby the unheard becomes heard, the unthought thought, the unknown known ?'" (Chānd. 6.1.3). The meaning of this text is as follows: O son Śvetaketu! Did you ask for that 'instruction', i.e. that instructor, viz. the Supreme Soul, 'whereby', i.e. through hearing of whom from the preceptor, even what is unheard becomes heard, what is unthought becomes thought, what is unknown becomes known ? It is known from this initial proposition that the Supreme Soul is the material cause, since the hearing and the rest of the effects is justifiable only through the hearing and the rest of the material cause. The illustration given is as follows: '"Just as, my dear, through a lump of clay, all objects made of clay may be known"' (Chānd. 6.1.4) and so on. It is known from this illustration that the Supreme Soul is the material cause of the object illustrated as well (viz. clay) A potter has not been cited in the illustration; and through a potter being known, a pot cannot be known. But a lump of clay being known, all objects made of clay, like pots and the rest, may, indeed, be known. To the contention, viz. that in the world of ordinary experience sentient beings like potters and the rest are found to be efficient causes merely,—we reply: We do not arrive at the cause of the world by means of inference and the rest, and so, for us, there is no need for the illustration of a potter. But discarding all evidences contrary to the Veda, we follow what is mentioned by Scripture and the pre- ceptor ¹. Moreover, in the world of ordinary experience, too, we see that a sentient person is the material cause of the effects like hairs, body-hairs and the rest; that a spider is the material cause of the web, and so on. We read in Scripture, too: 'Just as hairs and body- hairs (arise) from a person, just as a spider creates and takes' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.7 ²). If it be objected that in the above cases, the material causes containing elements, suitable for giving rise to the effects,—(we reply:) in the subject of our discussion, too, there is God's self-power, called prakṛti. ¹ Vide V.K. 1.1.3 ² Correct quotation: 'Yathā ūrṇa-nābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca Yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ sambhavanti. Yathā sataḥ puruṣāt keśa-lomāni', etc. Vide Muṇḍ. 1.1.7, p. 9.

260 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 4. 24-25. ADH. 7.] SŪTRA 24 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF REFLECTION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the teaching of reflection" in the text: 'He perceived (i.e thought): "May I be many"' (Chānd. 6.2.3), the fact that Brahman is the creator (i.e. the efficient cause) and the material cause is established. Vedānta-kaustubha "On account of the teaching of reflection," i.e. on account of the teaching of resolution, in the passage: 'He wished' (Tait. 2.6), as well as on account of the teaching of resolution in the passage '"May I be many"' (Tait. 2.6, Chānd. 6.2.3), the Supreme Soul alone can appropriately be the creator (or the efficient cause) and the material cause respectively) COMPÁRISON All others read 'ca' in the end.¹ SŪTRA 25 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIRECT MENTION OF BOTH IN THE SACRED TEXT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On account of the direct mention of Brahman as the efficient and material cause in the sacred text: 'Brahman was the wood, Brahman the tree from which they carved out the heaven and the earth. O wise men, ask through the mind whereon it stood supporting the worlds' ² (Tait. Br. 2.8.9.6-7 ³), Brahman alone is of the two-fold forms. ¹ The reading in the C.S.S. ed. of V.P S., however, adds 'ca' at the end, p. 23. But the Brindaban ed. (vol. I) omits the 'ca', p. 354. ² Last line of the quotation incorrect. For the correct quotation see below V.K. The C.S.S. ed. gives the correct quotation, p. 23, which is translated here. ³ P. 360, lines 5–7, vol. 2. R, Bh, B.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 26. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 261 Vedānta-kaustubha The particle "and" implies affirmation. Brahman is, indeed, both the material and the efficient cause Why? "On account of the direct mention of both in the sacred text." Thus, to the question, viz. 'What was the wood, what was the tree from which they carved out the heaven and the earth? O wise men, ask through the mind whereon it stood supporting the worlds' (Tait. Br. 2.8.9 6¹; Ṛg.V. 10 81.4²), the answer: 'Brahman was the wood, Brahman the tree from which they carved out the heaven and the earth. O wise men, I tell you through the mind, it stood on Brahman supporting the worlds' (Tait. Br. 2.8.9.6-7), directly records 'both', i.e the fact that Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause COMPARISON Bhāskara This is Sūtra 24 in his commentary. Interpretation different, viz. 'On account of the direct mention of both (viz. origin and dissolu- tion) by the sacred text'. That is, in Chāndogya 1.9 1 it is said that all beings arise from and disappear into the ether. Now, here the term 'ether' stands for Brahman (as shown in Br. Sū. 1 1.22). Hence the above passage means that all things arise from and disappear into Brahman. But things disappear into their material cause from which they have arisen. Hence the above passage proves that Brahman is the material cause of everything.³ SŪTRA 26 "ON ACCOUNT OF CREATING HIMSELF, ON ACCOUNT OF TRANS- FORMATION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Brahman alone is the efficient and the material cause of the world. Why? "On account of creating Himself," as known from the passage: 'That itself created itself' (Tait. 2.7⁴). If it be objected: How can the Creator be Himself the object of creation?—(We reply:) 'On ¹ P. 360, lines 2-5, vol. 2. ² P. 336, lines 8-10. ³ Bh. B. 1.4.24, p. 85. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 26. 262 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] account of transformation'. The omniscient and omnipotent Brah- man, having transformed Himself into the form of the world by the projection of His power, becomes transformed, indeed, through His own nature, undeveloped, and possessing powers like creatorship, etc. Vedānta-kaustubha Brahman alone is the efficient and the material cause. Why? "On account of creating himself " That is, in the text: 'That itself created itself' (Tait. 2.7), He Himself is indicated as the creator of Himself, the object of creation,—the word 'kṛti' means creation,— on account of this. If it be objected: How can the fact that the Creator Himself is the object of His own creation be reconcilable?— the author replies: "On account of transformation". The omniscient and omnipotent Supreme Soul, non-deviating in nature, transforms Himself into the form of the world through the projection of His own powers, consisting in His own self and superintended by Him; on account of such a transformation everything is faultless. His powers are infinite and natural, as established by the following scriptural and Smṛti texts, viz. 'His supreme power is declared to be of various kinds indeed, and natural is the operation of his knowledge and power' (Śvet. 6.8). 'The ancient Person is possessed of a variety of powers, and the powers of others cannot be like them', 'Hundreds of positive powers, like creation and the rest, which are inconceivable to the com- prehension of all beings, may belong to Brahman, O best among the ascetics, as heat to fire' (V.P. 1.3.2 ¹). He projects them in the beginning of creation. The best among the sacred texts of the Śvetā- śvataras proves His non-dependence on another at the beginning of creation, as well as His being without an equal or a superior, thus: 'His action and organ do not exist, His equal or superior is not seen' (Śvet. 6.8). And the following scriptural and Smṛti texts are evidences with regard to His transformation or the projection of powers: 'Just as a spider creates and takes' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.7), 'Having entered into pradhāna (i.e. matter) and puruṣa (i.e. soul) through His own wish, Hari stirred up the mutable (viz. matter) and the immutable (viz. soul) when the time of creation arrived' (V.P. 1.2.29 ²), 'Just as a tortoise, having stretched forth its limbs, draws them in again, so the

¹ P. 22. ² P. 16.

[sū. 1. 4. 27. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 263 soul of beings swallows up again the created beings' (Mahā. 12. 7072b–7073a¹). COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha They break the sūtra into two different sūtras, viz. 'Ātmakṛteḥ' and 'Pariṇāmāt' ² SŪTRA 27 "AND BECAUSE (BRAHMAN) IS CELEBRATED TO BE THE SOURCE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And in the texts 'The source of beings which the wise see' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.6 ³), 'The creator, the Lord, the person, the source of Brahmā' (Muṇḍ 3.1.3 ⁴), Brahman "is celebrated" by the word "source". Hence, Brahman alone is the material cause. Vedānta-kaustubha "Because" in the texts: 'The source of beings which the wise see' (Muṇḍ. 1.1 6), 'The creator, the Lord, the person, the source of Brahmā' (Muṇḍ. 3.1 3), 'This is the source of all' (Māṇḍ. 6), Brahman "is celebrated" by the word "source", denoting the material cause,—the material cause is none but Brahman,—this is the sense. Hence, the doctrine of the Sāṁkhyas is not to be accepted, being opposed as it is to the Veda. It is established that Lord Kṛṣṇa alone, the sole topic of all the Vedas, different and non-different from the universe, the Highest Person, the Lord, and the Lord of all, is to be meditated on by one desirous of salvation as the non-different material and efficient cause of the universe. Here ends the section entitled 'The material cause' (7). 1 P 615, lines 24-25, vol. 3. Reading: 'Harate' instead of 'grasate'. Vaṅgavāsī ed. too reads 'harate', p. 1571. 2 Śrī. B. p. 404, Part 1 ; Śk. B., pp. 564-65, Part 6. 3 Ś, R, Bh, B. 4 Op. cit.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 28. 264 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 8.] COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Śrīkaṇṭha As before they do not take this adhikarana to be directly connected with the refutation of the Sāṃkhya view, as Nimbārka does.¹ Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled 'The expla- nation of all' (Sūtra 28) SŪTRA 28 "HEREBY ALL IS EXPLAINED, EXPLAINED." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "Hereby", i.e. by the totality of the sections, 'all' the Vedāntas 'are explained' as referring to Brahman, "explained". Here ends the fourth quarter of the first chapter of the Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṃsā texts, and composed by the reverend Nimbārka. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing the con- cordance of all the Vedāntas with regard to Brahman by means of extended and analogical application² "Hereby", i.e. through the above mode of concordance, "all" Vedāntas, mentioned or non- mentioned, should be known to be "explained" as referring to Brahman. It should be known that the Vedas also are in concordance with regard to Brahman alone, in accordance with the scriptural text: 'The word which all the Vedas record' (Katha 2.15); and in accordance with the Smṛti text: '"I alone am to be known through all the Vedas"' (Gītā 15.15). The repetition shows the end of the chapter. Hence it is established that Lord Kṛṣṇa, the cause of the origin and the rest of the universe, the sole topic of all the Vedas, and ¹ Vide V.K. 1.4.28, p. 142 and 1.4.27, p. 145. K.S.S. ed. ² Atideśa. For the explanation of 'atideśa' see V.K. 2.1.3.

[sū. 1. 4. 28. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 265 denoted by the terms ‘Brahman’, ‘Nārāyaṇa’ and the rest, is to be worshipped by one, desirous of salvation, through hearing, thinking, meditating and so on. Here ends the section entitled ‘The explanation of all’ (8) Here ends the fourth quarter of the first chapter of the Vedānta- kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, and composed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the holy lotus-feet of Nimbārka, the founder and teacher of the sect of the venerable Sanatkumāra. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz they connect this adhikaraṇa more directly with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, which Nimbārka does not. Thus, the meaning of the sūtra according to Śaṁkara and Bhāskara is: ‘Hereby’ (i.e. by the mode of refuting the Sāṁkhya view), all (i.e. other doctrine like Atomism and the rest) are explained (as negated), explained’.¹ Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. ‘Hereby (viz. by the method indi- cated above) all (the words like pradhāna, Śiva and the rest) are explained (as denoting Brahman alone), explained’.² Thus, we find that Nimbārka, Rāmānuja and Baladeva direct the entire pāda, except the last adhikaraṇa, to the refutation of the Sāṁkhya view, but surprisingly enough make no reference to the Sāṁkhya view in the last adhikaraṇa, bringing in different topics. Nimbārka and Rāmānuja speak of the general concordance of the Vedānta texts in the last section, while Baladeva speaks of the signi- ficance of all names. No less surprising is the procedure of Śaṁkara and Bhāskara. Śaṁkara finishes with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine in adhikaraṇa 3, and takes the intervening four adhikaraṇa as concerned, not with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, but with the general concordance of the Vedānta texts, etc. Then, all of a sudden, he refers to the Sāṁkhya doctrine in the last adhikaraṇa. ¹ Ś.B. 1.4.28, p. 436; Bh. B. 1.4.27, p. 86. ² G.B. 1.4.28.

266 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 4. 28. ADH. 8.] Bhāskara closely follows Śaṁkara. He too finishes with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine in adhikaraṇa 3, takes the inter- vening three adhikaraṇas as concerned with the general concordance of texts, but takes the last two adhikaraṇas as referring to the Sāṁkhya doctrine. Śrīkaṇṭha is the most consistent of all. He finishes with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine in adhikaraṇa 3, once for all, and directs the remaining adhikaraṇas to other topics. Résumé The fourth section of the first chapter consists of:—

1. 28 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka.
2. 28 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṁkara.
3. 29 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja.
4. 27 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara.
5. 29 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha 6 28 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva. Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha split sūtra 26 in Nimbārka-bhāṣya into two separate sūtras, while Bhāskara takes the sūtras 17 and 18 in Nimbārka-bhāṣya as one sūtra.