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

[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.

SECOND CHAPTER (Adhyāya) FIRST QUARTER (Pāda) Adhikarana 1 The section entitled 'Smṛti'. (Sūtras 1-2) SŪTRA 1 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT THERE WILL RESULT THE FAULT OF NOT LEAVING A ROOM FOR SMRTI, (WE REPLY.) NO, FOR THERE WILL RESULT THE FAULT FOR LEAVING NO ROOM FOR (OTHER) SMRTIS." The interpretation of the Brahma-sūtras entitled: 'Vedānta-pāri- jāta-saurabha', composed by the reverend Nimbārka. Now, it is being demonstrated in details how the stated concord- ance is free from all contradictions. If it be objected: There does exist a need for Smrtis for confirming Scripture. Among these, the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti is to be accepted. It is not to be said that it, designating as it does a non-sentient cause, is not to be accepted for that reason—for, then, "there will result the fault of leaving no room for Smṛti"—(we reply) 'no', for, then, there will result the contra- diction of other Smṛtis which deal with a sentient cause mentioned in the Veda—such is the meaning of the text. The commentary entitled 'Vedānta-kaustubha', composed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa. With a view to inducing one desiring salvation to the repeated practice of the hearing, thinking and the like of the Vedānta, revealing the qualities, nature and so on of Brahman,—which practice is con- ducive to the meditation on Brahman, the exclusive cause of a direct vision of Him,—the concordance of the scriptural texts with regard to Brahman,—the Highest Person, different and non-different from all, free by nature from all faults, the one abode of a mass of auspicious qualities and the cause of the world,—has been shown in the previous chapter. Now, in this second chapter, contradictions are being removed. Thus, in the first quarter, the faults found by the opponents with our own view are refuted. In the second quarter, faults are found with the views of the opponents, based on a semblance of reason, (and not on real reason), with a view to inducing people to our own view. In the third quarter, it is shown in details how the scriptural

[SŪ. 2. 1. 1. 268 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] texts, regarding the origin of the great elements like the ether and the rest, are all free from contradictions; and, further, the order of creation and destruction, and the nature of the individual soul, are determined. In the fourth quarter, again, the contradictions among the texts, demonstrating the organs of the individual soul, are removed. Now, first, it is being demonstrated that our view is consistent with the Smṛtis as well. It has been stated in the section treating of proof ¹ that Brahman, the cause of the world, has the Veda as His sole proof, since He cannot be known through any other source. And in the section, treating of concordance ², it has been established that there is concordance of all the Vedas with regard to Brahman alone. And, likewise, the meaning of the Veda being very difficult to be grasped without the help of Smṛtis, composed by those who are versed in the Veda, there is a need for Smṛtis as well. It has been declared by Smṛti itself that one, who is without the Smṛti, to be a one-eyed man, thus: 'Scripture and Smṛti are celebrated to be the two eyes of the wise. Deprived of one, one is said to be "one-eyed"; deprived of both, "blind"'. Hence, on the doubt, viz whether the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti and the rest are to be accepted as true for the sake of making the Veda clear, or the Manu- Smṛti and the like,—if it be argued: The Sāṁkhya-Smṛti is to be accepted for the sake of making the Veda clear, the aim of the Veda being to impart self-knowledge to all. If unable to give rise to self- knowledge, the collected Vedic texts must all be simply fruitless like a cow yielding no milk. So why should a Smṛti, which is concerned with teaching self-knowledge, be disregarded by any seeker after knowledge? The Manu-Smṛti and the rest, on the other hand, aim simply at demonstrating the works which lead to results, here or hereafter. The Śvetāśvataras record the omniscience of Kapila in the passage: 'Who, in the beginning, bears in his thoughts the sage Kapila, the born, and sees him while being born' (Śvet 5.2). Hence the Smṛti which is composed by an omniscient person must be accepted for knowing the principle of the soul. That part of Veda which teaches the principle of the soul should be understood in accordance with the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti alone. Thus, as the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti teaches a non-sentient cause, the doctrine of a sentient cause cannot be accepted. Otherwise, "there will result the fault of leaving no room for the Smṛti", ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 1.1 3. ² Vide Br. Sū. 1.1 4.

[Sū. 2. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 269 i e. there must result the fault of leaving no room for a Smṛti which designates a non-sentient cause and is composed by an omniscient sage, celebrated in the Veda,— (We reply:) 'no', such a prima facie view is not reasonable. Why? "Because there will result the fault of not leaving room for other Smṛtis", i.e. because there will result the fault of leaving no room for the Smṛtis other than it, viz. the Manu-Smṛti and the rest which establish Brahman to be the sole cause and are based on Scripture. The opponent who is shouting on the ground of Smṛti can be silenced by that very Smṛti itself. Thus, the reverend Manu says: 'He appeared as possessing effective powers, like the great elements and the rest, dispelling darkness' (Manu 1.6¹), 'He having intended (to be many), and desirous of creating various kinds of beings, created water in the beginning and left his power in it' (Manu 1 8²). Āpastamba too says 'Living beings are the abode of him who dwells in all caves (viz. hearts), who is not killed and who is stainless' (Āp. D S. 1.22.4³), 'From him arise all bodies. He alone is the source, constant, he is eternal' (Āp. D.S. 1 23.2⁴). It is said in the Bhārata (i.e. Mahā-bhārata) in the Rāja-dharma: '"You are its origin and the dissolution, O Kṛṣṇa! You alone create this universe in the beginning. And this universe is under your control, O Source of the Universe! Obeisance to you, O (Lord) with the bow, disc and sword in hands!"' (Mahā. 12.1514⁵). In the Mokṣa-dharma⁶, it is said: '"For he is the inner soul of beings, and called the knower of the field⁷. He is Nārāyaṇa, having the universe as his form, infinite, constant⁸. From him arose the un- manifest, having three guṇas, O best among the twice-born!"' (Mahā. 12.12680⁹). In that very section, to the question. '"O reverend Father! O supremely wise one! I wish to hear, in truth, ¹ P. 5 ² P. 5. ³ P 39, lines 3-4. ⁴ P. 40, line 2. ⁵ P. 419, line 5, vol. 3. ⁶ The name of a section of the 12th book of the Mahā-bhārata, from Chap. 174 to the end. ⁷ I.e. the knower of the body. ⁸ This line is not found either in the Asiatic Society ed, or in the Vaṅgavāsī ed. Both read instead the line: 'Triguṇa-vyatirikto vai puruṣaś ceti kalpitaḥ'. Vide Asiatic Society ed., p. 812, line 5, vol. 3 Vaṅgavāsī ed., p. 1800, lines 14-15. ⁹ P. 812, lines 5-6, vol. 3, Asiatic Society ed.

[SŪ. 2. 1. 1. 270 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] about Viṣṇu, with eyes like lotus, unchangeable, the creator who is not created, the origin and dissolution of beings, about Nārāyaṇa, Hṛṣīkeśa, Govinda, the unconquered, about Keśava, O best among the Bhāratas!'" (Mahā. 12.7518-19 1), (the answer given was:) '"The Highest Person, the great-souled one, the soul of beings, fashion- ed the great elements, the air, the light and likewise the water, and the ether and the sky"' (Mahā. 12.7825 2). In the Dāna-dharma, Śiva says: '"Higher than even the reverend Father (i.e. Brahmā) is Hari, the eternal Person, Kṛṣṇa, of a golden appearance and arisen like the sun in the cloudless sky, designated as Śrīvatsa, Hṛṣīkeśa worshipped by all the deities. Brahmā has sprung up from his belly,— likewise I from his forehead, the lights from the hairs on his head, the gods and the demons from his body-hairs, the sages have arisen from his body, likewise, the eternal worlds. He is the veritable abode of the reverend Father (i e. Brahmā), as well as the abode of all the gods. He is the creator of this entire world, the Lord of all the three worlds, the destroyer of all beings, of the immobile as well as of the mobile. He is directly perceived at all times indeed by one who has conquered his passions. He is the Lord of the gods and higher than the high, omniscient, connected with all, moving everywhere and turned towards all. He is the Supreme Soul, Hṛṣīkeśa, all- pervading, the Supreme Lord"' (Mahā. 13.6507–6512 3). In that very section, the omniscient Devavrata, too, says, beginning '"For I know Kṛṣṇa in truth"' (Mahā. 13.7659 4) and continuing: '"Know everything, the movable, as well as the immovable, all souls and the universe as Kṛṣṇa.5 Whatever is honoured in the worlds as a meritorious act, whatever is auspicious or inauspicious,—all that is Keśava, the inconceivable, everything else is the reverse. Such a Keśava is self-born, He is Nārāyaṇa supreme and unchangeable; the middle, the beginning and the end of the universe which existed; knowable by all; the origin as well as the dissolution of beings"' 1 P. 631, lines 18-19, vol. 3. 2 Op. cit., line 25. 3 Pp. 237-238, vol. 4. Reading different in some places, viz. ‘Sa hi deva- varaḥ sākṣād deva-nāthaḥ parantapaḥ. Sarvajñaḥ sa hi saṁśliṣṭaḥ . . .’ Vaṅgavāsī ed. reads sarva-saṁśliṣṭaḥ otherwise it is the same as the above. P. 2006, vol. 2. 4 P. 256, line 26, vol. 4. 5 Reading: 'Sarvaṁ kṛtsnaṁ . . viśvam enam . . ', P. 258, line 7 Reading in the Vaṅgavāsī ed. exactly similar. P. 2017.

[sū. 2. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 271 (Mahā. 13.7391; 7399–7400¹). And the statements by Him whose feet are worshipped by all the composers of Smṛtis are as follows: ‘“I am the source of all, from me everything arises”’ (Gītā 10.8), ‘“I am the source, likewise, the dissolution of the entire universe”’ (Gītā 7.6). Parāśara, too, declares: ‘“The universe has arisen from Viṣṇu, and in Him alone it is grounded. He is the cause of the sub- sistence and control of the universe and He is the universe”’ (V.P. 1.1.35²). The sense is that if the view of Kapila be accepted as conducive to the Vedānta, then all those above and other texts must be contradicted. But the Manu-Smṛti and others are acceptable, since they establish religious duties, which are meant to the knowledge of Brahman, designated in the Veda, since they establish the qualities, nature and the rest of Brahman, and since they are composed by those who know the Veda. And in the Veda the cause of the world is designated to be a sentient principle, in fact, none but Brahman. Because of their opposition to this, the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti and the rest are not acceptable. As the reverend Manu says: ‘Whatever Smṛtis are outside the pale of the Veda, whatever heterodox doctrines there are,—all of them are fruitless after death; these Smṛtis are given to ignorance’ (Manu 12.95³). Further, the composer, too, of the Smṛti which is opposed to the Veda (viz. the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti) is a certain sage, called Kapila, like Kaṇāda and the rest, but is not the lord Kapila, called Vāsudeva. As is declared by the Padma-purāṇa: ‘Kapila, called Vāsudeva, told the principle of the Sāṁkhya, supported by the meaning of all the Vedas, to the gods like Brahmā and the rest, and likewise to Bhṛgu and others, likewise to Āsuri. Another Kapila told the Sāṁkhya, opposed to all the Vedas and supported by false arguments, to another Āsuri’. Kapila, mentioned in the scriptural text, should be known to be Hiraṇyagarbha. ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ P. 258, lines 7, 18-19. Reading: ‘Etādṛśaḥ, Keśavo’taś ca bhūyo Nārā- yaṇaḥ . . sambabhūsatāṁ . . . .’. Vaṅgavāsī ed. exactly similar, only ‘babhūsatāṁ’ in place of ‘sambabhūsatāṁ’. P. 2017. ² P. 8. ³ P. 483.

[SŪ. 2. 1. 2. 272 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.] SŪTRA 2 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-PERCEPTION ON THE PART OF OTHERS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And on account of the non-perception on the part of others", i.e. on the part of Manu and the rest, that the Veda is concerned with pradhāna, Smṛti which is opposed to the Veda is unauthentic. Vedānta-kaustubha "And on account of the non-perception on the part of others",— i.e. on the part of men like Manu and the rest, other than Kapila and best among those versed in the Vedas,¹—that the Veda is concerned with pradhāna, the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti is to be disregarded. Hence, it is established that the rejection of the Smṛti which is opposed to the Veda is not in conflict with the stated concordance. Here ends the section entitled 'Smṛti' (1). COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz. 'On account of the non-perception (in Scripture and ordinary experience) of others (viz. of the principles of mahat and the rest, other than pradhāna), (the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti is not to be accepted)'.² Baladeva His interpretation too is very similar to the above one; viz. 'On account of the non-perception (in Scripture) of others (viz. of many other doctrines found in the Sāṃkhya system, such as, the doctrine that the souls are pure consciousness and all-pervasive, and so on)'.³ ¹ I.e. as men like Manu and others reject pradhāna, pradhāna cannot be the cause of the world. ² Ś.B. 2.1.2, p. 443 ; Bh. B. 2.1.2, p. 88. ³ G.B. 2.1 2, p. 11, Chap. 1.

[sū. 2. 1. 3. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 273 Adhikaraṇa 2. The section entitled: 'The re- futation of the Yoga'. (Sūtra 3) SŪTRA 3 "HEREBY THE YOGA IS REFUTED." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha By the refutation of the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti, the Yoga-Smṛti, too is refuted. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, the author points out the unauthenticity of the Yoga- Smṛti. This aphorism is of the form of a formal extension (atideśa). A formal extension means the intimation of similarity when such a similarity is not known. Thus, at first, the Yoga-Smṛti is taken to be concerned with making the Veda clear, accepting as it does the word 'Yoga', which is accepted by Scripture, too, in the text: 'This they think to be the Yoga, the firm holding back of the senses' (Kaṭha 6.11); and hence its similarity to the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti is not known. Therefore, this aphorism intimates the similarity of the Yoga-Smṛti to the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti. "Hereby", i.e. by this very refutation of the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti which establishes a non-sentient cause, the Yoga-Smṛti, too, should be known to be refuted. In the statement. "The Yoga is refuted", by the term "yoga", the Smṛti which establishes it is understood. The purpose of the mention of the term "Yoga" in the statement: 'The Yoga-Smṛti is refuted' is this: Although the Lord is admitted in the Yoga doctrine, yet He is not established primarily, as He is in the aphorism and texts like: "Then, therefore, an enquiry into Brahman' (Br. Sū. 1.1.1), '"O, the soul, verily, should be seen"' (Bṛh. 2.4 5; 4.5.6); The primacy of the Yoga alone is found in the beginning: 'Now, an instruction with regard to the Yoga' (Y S. 1.1), and in the aphorism, laying down its definition, viz.: 'The Yoga is the suppression of the functions of the mind' (Y.S. 1.2¹). And, this mere suppression of the functions of the mind, devoid of any connection with the Lord, is, indeed, of no avail in crossing the world, any more than a dog's tail is in crossing the ocean. ¹ P. 4. 18

274 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 1. 4. ADH. 3.] So, it is to be rejected, opposed as it is to Scriptural and Smṛti texts like '"O, the soul, verily, should be seen"' (Bṛh. 2.4.5; 4.5 6), 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tait. 2 1), '"By knowing me, one attains peace"' (Gītā 5.29), 'The binder with the noose of the world, and the liberator from the noose of the world', 'This one thing is well-established that the object to be worshipped is Nārāyaṇa, Hari' and so on. Salvation being impossible through a mere suppression of the functions of the mind, the Yoga doctrine which deals with the primacy of that only is, indeed, non-acceptable. Its view is that pradhāna, devoid of any connection with Brahman, is the material cause of the world, and the Lord is merely the efficient cause of the world, and this, too, being opposed to the Veda, is certainly unreasonable. There are many other faults in the Yoga doctrine, but they are not quoted here needlessly. And the term 'Yoga' found in Scripture and Smṛti, refers to the meditation and the rest on the Lord. The eulogizing statement in the Mokṣa-dharma, etc., on the contrary, is intended only for referring to that portion of Yoga, etc. which is not opposed to Scripture. Hence, it is established that the stated concordance, indicating the causality of Brahman, is not contradicted by the Yoga-Smṛti. Here ends the section entitled 'The refutation of the Yoga' (2). Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled 'Difference' (Sūtras 4-11). Prima facie view (Sūtras 4-5) SŪTRA 4 "(THERE IS) NO (HAVING BRAHMAN AS THE CAUSE) ON ITS PART, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE, (ITS) BEING SO (IS KNOWN) FROM THE TEXT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha We object ¹ to your view on the ground of reason. The world has not Brahman as its material cause "on account of difference". ¹ Correct reading: 'pratyavatiṣṭhate' which is translated here. Vide C.S.S. ed., p. 24 and Brindaban ed., p. 378.

[sū. 2. 1. 4. ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 275 And the difference is to be known also "from the text", viz. 'He became knowledge and non-knowledge' (Tait. 2 6 1). Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, the objection based on Smṛtis has been disposed of by the preceding two sections. Now, the objection based on reasoning is being disposed of. It has been stated under the aphorism: 'From whom (arise) its origin and the rest' (Br. Sū 1 1.2) that it (viz. the world) has Brahman for its material cause. The prima facie objector objects to it on the ground of reason thus: 'no'. This world has not Brahman for its material cause Why? "On account of difference " That is, Brahman possesses the attributes of sentience, non-grossness, infinity, purity, and the rest, while the world possesses just the opposite attributes of non-sentience, grossness and so on,—on account of such a dissimilarity between the two. Whatever is different from something has not that for its material cause, just as the pot, which is different from the ether, has not the ether as its material cause; just as the pot. the dish and the rest, which are different from the potter, have not the potter as their material cause. If it be objected. It is found that the attributes of a material cause recur in its effects as well. Similarly, in the case under discussion, too, Brahman is the material cause; and the universe, His effect, consisting of sentient beings like men, animals and the rest, must be similar to Him. Hence the reason (viz.: "On account of difference ") does not hold good,— (We reply) No, because that there do exist the attributes of non-sentience, grossness and the rest in the effect, viz. in stones, wood and the rest, is known from the evidence of direct perception. If it be objected: It is possible to imagine that there is sentience in them, too, though unmanifest; hence there is no difference. (We reply:) No, because it is unreasonable to take what is known through direct perception to be otherwise on the ground of mere imagination. The difference is known "from the text" as well,—this is stated by the phrase: "its being so", i.e. "its being so", or its difference, is known "from the text" as well, i.e. from the following texts: 'He 1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

|sū. 2. 1. 5. 276 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.] became Knowledge and non-knowledge' (Tait. 2.6), 'On the same tree, a person, immersed, grieves for his impotence, bewildered' (Muṇḍ. 3 1 2, Śvet 4 7), 'And the soul, which is without the Lord, is bound, because of being an enjoyer' (Śvet. 1.8) and so on. COMPARISON Baladeva Interpretation absolutely different He takes this sūtra as forming one adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with demonstrating the eternity and infallibility of the Veda. He thus does not take this sūtra as representing a prima facie view. Thus, this sūtra means,— according to him,—'(The Veda is) not (unauthoritative like the Sāṁkhya and the rest), on account of (its) difference (from them), (i.e. because it is a non-human origin unlike the Sāṁkhya and the rest), (its) being so (i e its eternity) (is known) from the text '.¹ PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded) SŪTRA 5 "BUT (THERE IS) THE DESIGNATION OF THE PRESIDING (DEITIES) ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIALITY AND FOLLOWING." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "But" in the texts. 'The earth spoke' (Tait Saṁ 5 5 2, 3²), 'These sense-organs, disputing about self-supremacy, went to Brahma' (Bṛh. 6 1 7 ³) and so on, there is the designation of their presiding' ⁴ deities, 'on account of the specification', mentioned in the passage. '"Very well, let me enter into these three divinities"' (Chānd. 6 3.2 ⁵); and 'on account of the following', or entering, mentioned in the passage: 'Fire, becoming speech, entered the mouth' (Ait. 2.4 ⁶). Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz : From the scriptural texts: 'The earth spoke to him' (Tait. Saṁ 5.5 2, 3), 'The earth spoke' (Śat. Br.

¹ G.B 2.1.4, p 18, Chap. 2. ² P. 76, line 9, vol. 2. ³ Ś, R, B. ⁴ C.S.S. ed. reads 'tat-tat', meaning 'their respective deities', p. 24. ⁵ R, ŚK, B. ⁶ Ś, R, Bh, SK