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

[sū. 2. 4. 10-11. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 461 SŪTRA 10 “BUT LIKE THE EYES AND THE REST, (THE VITAL-BREATH IS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE SOUL), BECAUSE OF BEING AN OBJECT TO BE TAUGHT TOGETHER WITH THEM AND SO ON.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Though the best, the vital-breath is but a special instrument of the individual soul, “like the eyes and the rest”. Why? “On account of being an object to be taught and so on,” i.e. on account of the teaching of the vital-breath together with the eyes and the rest in the dialogue among the sense-organs and so on. The author shows that the vital-breath, being under the control of the individual soul, is serviceable to the soul like the eyes and the rest Vedānta-kaustubha The meaning of the term “but” is that in spite of its superiority to the sense-organs, no independence is possible on the part of the vital-breath, as is possible on the part of the individual soul. The vital-breath is “like the eyes and the rest”. That is, just as the eyes and the rest are instruments of the individual soul, so the vital-breath is a special instrument of the individual soul. To the question: Whence is it known that it is an instrument of the soul?—We reply: “Because of being an object to be taught together with them”, i.e. because of the teaching of the vital-breath together with them, i.e. together with the eyes and the rest, in the dialogue among the sense- organs. By the phrase: “and so on”, reasons like non-sentience, incapability of self-dependence and the rest are implied. SŪTRA 11 “AND (THERE IS) NO FAULT ON THE GROUND OF (ITS) NOT BEING A SENSE-ORGAN, FOR THUS (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected: If the vital-breath be an instrument of the individual soul, then there being no activity suitable to it, there must be fault “on the ground of (its) not being a sense-organ”,—

[SŪ. 2. 4 11. 462 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] (We reply:) “no”, since the scriptural text: ‘ “I alone, dividing myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3 ¹), “shows” that the holding up of the body is the peculiar function of the vital- breath. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected. Just as one can be a perceiver only if there be some object to be perceived, so a thing may be an instrument only if there be some function to be accomplished by it; and this is not found. Hence the vital-breath cannot be a sense-organ Thus, as the vital-breath is not a sense-organ, so if it be an instrument of the individual soul, it is but a futile one,— We reply: “No”. There is no such fault. “For,” i.e. since, in order that the vital-breath may be serviceable as an instrument of the individual soul, the holy Scripture “shows”, under the dialogue among the sense-organs, that a purpose is served by the vital-breath as well—one that cannot be served by the sense-organs,—viz. the holding up of the body and the sense-organs: ‘The chief vital-breath said to them: “Do not fall in delusion. It is I alone who, dividing myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara According to them the word “akaraṇatvāt” answers the prima facie, viz. that if the vital-breath be an organ of the soul, then there must be a sense-object for it, like colour for the eyes and so on. The answer is that there need be no sense-object, since the vital-breath is not an organ like the eyes and the rest. Still it is not devoid of a function, the holding of the body being its special function.² Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva According to them, the word “akaraṇatvāt” means: “On account of not having a function”. That is, no objection can be raised on ¹ Ś. ² Ś.B. 2.4.11, pp 662-63; Bh. B. 2.4.11, p. 148.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 12. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 463 the ground that the vital-breath has no special activity, for it does have a special function ¹ SŪTRA 12 “(THE VITAL-BREATH) HAVING FIVE MODES IS DESIGNATED LIKE THE MIND.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Just as the mind having many modes serves the individual soul through its own modes like desire and the rest, so the vital-breath, too, “having five modes, is designated” as serving the soul through its modes like apāna and the rest. Vedānta-kaustubha The author points out that the same vital-breath is designated as manifold through the difference of modes, but these latter are not separate entities The vital-breath does not serve the soul by only holding up the body, but by other functions too. Just as in conformity with the text: ‘Desire, resolution, doubt, faith,—², firmness, lack of firmness, bashfulness, meditation, fear,— all these are the mind alone’ (Bṛh. 1.5.3), the mind alone, possessed of desire and the rest as its modes, serves the individual soul through its own modes, but desire, resolution and the rest are not special kinds of entities, so by the text: ‘The prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna, samāna—all these are the vital-breath’ (Bṛh 1.5.3), the vital-breath alone “is designated as having five modes”. The apāna and the rest are the modes of the vital-breath itself, but not separate entities, and it serves the soul through its own modes,—this is the sense. This being so, it is established that the vital-breath is the air itself that has assumed a different condition, an instrument of the individual soul, possessed of many modes and is the best. Here ends the section entitled “The air and function” (5). ¹ Śrī. B. 2.4.10, p. 177, Part 2, Madras ed.; Śk. B. 2.4.10, p. 174, Parts 7 and 8; G.B. 2.4.11. ² “Lack of faith.”

464 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 13-14. ADH. 6-7.] Adhikaraṇa 6. The section entitled "The atom- icity of the best". (Sūtra 13) SŪTRA 13 "AND ATOMIC" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In accordance with the scriptural text designating departure, the vital-breath, too, is "atomic". Vedānta-kaustubha Now the size of the chief vital-breath is being considered. On the doubt, viz. whether the chief vital-breath is great in size or atomic,—if the suggestion be: In accordance with the scriptural texts: 'Everything is installed in the vital-breath' (Praśna 2.6), "For all this is covered by the vital-breath", it is great in size,— We reply: The vital-breath, the best, too, should be known to be "atomic", in accordance with the scriptural text: "He going out, the vital-breath goes out after him" (Bṛh. 4.4.2). The above scrip- tural texts, on the other hand, refer to the vital-breath in its collective aspect. Hence, it is established that the best (viz. the chief vital- breath) is atomic. Here ends the section entitled "The atomicity of the best" (6). Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled "The super- intending of fire and the rest". (Sūtras 14-18) SŪTRA 14 "BUT THE SUPERINTENDING OF FIRE AND THE REST, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECLARATION OF THAT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The sense-organs proceed to their respective functions as initiated by the divinities like fire and the rest, in accordance with the scrip- tural text: 'Fire becoming speech entered into the mouth' (Ait. 1.2.4 ¹). 1 Ś, B.

[sū. 2. 4. 14. VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 465 ADH. 7.] Vedānta-kaustubha Now, the activity of the sense-organs is being discussed. On the doubt, viz. whether the sense-organs like the eye and the rest proceed to their respective objects through their own power alone, or as initiated by their respective presiding divinities,—the suggestion being: Through their own power, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘For by the eyes one sees colours’ (Bṛh. 3.9.20),— We reply: “Fire and so on”. The term “but” is meant for disposing of the prima facie view. Speech and the rest function only as superintended by fire and so on, i.e by the divinities like fire and so on. The word “superintending” means that which is super- intended or initiated, 1.e. an object to be initiated. Just as chariots and the rest move as superintended by charioteers and others, so is the case here. Why? “On account of the declaration of that”, i.e. “on account of the declaration”, or mention, in the sacred text, “of that” or of the fact of their being superintended by fire and the rest,¹ thus: ‘Fire becoming speech entered into the mouth, the air becoming the vital-breath entered into the nose, the sun becoming sight entered into the eyes’ (Ait. 1.2.4). If there be no relation of the initiated and the initiator, the entering of the fire and the rest must become meaningless. The scriptural text: ‘For by the eyes’ (Bṛh. 3.9.20) and so on should be known to have served its purpose by proving simply that the eyes and the rest are sense-organs. COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha They read this and the next sūtra as one sūtra, interpreting it differently thus: “But the rule of the fire and the rest with the bearer of the vital-breath (i.e. the individual soul) (over the sense-organs is) on account of the thinking of that (viz. the Lord), in accordance with scriptural text.” That is, we learn from Scripture that the fire-god and the rest, as well as the individual soul rule over the sense-organs, but their rule depends on the will of the Lord.²

¹ This explains the compound “tad-āmananāt”. ² Śrī. B. 2.4.14, pp. 181-82, Part 1, Madras ed.; Śk. B. 2.4.14, p. 178, Parts 7 and 8. 30

[SŪ. 2. 4. 15. 466 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.] Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. “But the light (jyotiḥ) is the prime ruler (ādyadhiṣṭhāna), on account of the declaration of that.” That is, the Lord is the primary initiator of the sense-organs, while the fire-god and the rest, and the individual soul are secondary initiators.¹ SŪTRA 15 “WITH THE POSSESSOR OF THE VITAL-BREATH, ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIPTURAL TEXT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is a servant-master relation between the sense-organs and the individual soul alone. The soul is the enjoyer, “on account of the scriptural text”: ‘Now where the eye has entered into the ether, that is the seeing person: the eye is for seeing’ (Chānd. 8.12.4²). Vedānta-kaustubha If this be so, then enjoyment, too, may pertain to the gods,—to this the author replies: The possessor of the vital-breath is one who has the vital-breath, the cause of the holding up of the body and the sense-organs. The sense-organs have a servant-master relation “with the possessor of the vital-breath”, i.e. with the individual soul. This being so, the possessor of the vital-breath alone is the enjoyer of objects through the sense-organs,—this is the sense. Why? “On account of scriptural text”, i.e. on account of the scriptural text: ‘Now, where the eye has entered into the ether, that is the seeing person; the eye is for seeing’ (Chānd. 8.12.4). ¹ G.B. 2.4.14, p. 249, Chap. 2. ² Ś, B.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 16. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 467 SŪTRA 16 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE ETERNITY OF THAT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the eternity" of the above relationship with the individual soul alone, but not with the presiding deities. Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason, too, the enjoyer of the fruits, accomplishable by the sense-organs, is their master, the possessor of the vital-breath alone, but their presiding deities are not such enjoyers, "on account of the eternity of that", i.e. because there is an eternal relation between the sense-organs and the possessor of the vital-breath alone, as proved by the scriptural text: 'He going out the vital-breath goes out after him. The vital-breath going out all the sense-organs go out after it' (Bṛh. 4 4.2). The gods, on the other hand, abide in highest lordship, and not in what is wretched (viz. the body), in accordance with the scriptural text; 'Evil, verily, does not approach the gods' (Brh. 1 5 20¹). COMPARISON All others add a "ca" in the middle thus: "Tasya ca nityatvāt". Śaṃkara The interpretation of the word "tasya" different, viz.: "Because of the eternity of that (viz. of the individual soul)". That is, the individual soul alone abides permanently in the body as the enjoyer, but the deities cannot do so.² Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 14 in their commentaries. Interpretation different: On account of the eternity of that (viz. of the attribute of being ruled by the Lord). That is, all objects are eternally ruled by the Lord alone. Hence it follows that the rule of the sense-organs by the deities and the individual soul really depends upon the will of the Lord.³ ¹ Reading: "pāpam" and not "anagham". Vide Bṛh. 1.5.20, p. 70. ² Ś.B. 2.4.16, pp. 667-68. ³ Śrī. B. 2.4.14, p. 182, Part 2; Śk. B. 2.4.14, pp. 178-79, Parts 7 and 8.

468 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 17. ADH. 7.] Baladeva Interpretation different, viz And on account of the eternity of that, (i.e. of the relationship between the Lord and the gods) That is, there being an eternal relation between the gods and the Lord, the real ruler, the gods rule the sense-organs and so on, through the mere will of the Lord ¹ —————————————————— SŪTRA 17 "THEY (ARE) SENSE-ORGANS, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF THOSE AS OTHER THAN THE BEST." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the designation of those," i.e. of sense-organs, as different from the chief in the passage: 'From him arise the vital- breath, the mind and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3 ²), "they", i.e. the sense-organs, are different entities called 'sense-organs', but not particular modes of the chief. Vedānta-kaustubha Apprehending the objection, viz. in conformity with the scrip- tural text: '"Come, let us all become a form of him." Of him alone, they became a form' (Bṛh. 1.5 21 ³), other sense-organs, like the eye and the rest, are different modes of the chief vital-breath. They are not separate entities and cannot, therefore, have a separate re- lation with the possessor of the vital-breath (viz. the individual soul), our purpose being served if they have a relation with the vital-breath alone,—the author replies here. "On account of the designation of those," i.e. of them "as different from the chief" vital-breath in the passage: 'From him arise the vital- breath, the mind and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), separate entities indeed are designated by the scriptural text: 'Those prāṇas 1 G.B. 2.4.16, p. 250, Chap. 2. 2 Ś. Bh., B. 3 Vide Bṛh. 1.5.21 for the story. When the different sense-organs were created by Prajāpati, death came and overcame them all, with the exception of the vital-breath. Thereupon, the sense-organs decided to assume the form of the vital-breath.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 18. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 469 other than the chief, are the sense-organs' Otherwise, the eye and the rest too being understood—like apāna and so on—simply by the phrase. 'From him arise the vital-breath', the separate mention: 'and all the sense-organs' must be meaningless. Hence the sense- organs being separate entities, their relation with the possessor of the vital-breath or the individual soul must be depicted to be certainly different from their relation with the vital-breath. It cannot be said also that the mind too, which is separately designated, cannot be a sense-organ,—since in accordance with the Smṛti passages, viz.. "The sense-organs of which the mind is the sixth" (Gītā 15.7), "The sense-organs are ten and one" (Gītā 13 6), as well as in accordance with the scriptural text: 'There are ten sense-organs in a person, the soul is the eleventh' (Bṛh. 3.9 4), the mind as well is admitted to be a sense-organ. The separate designation of the mind, too, is not futile, since the mind being the leader of the sense-organs in conformity with the text: '"And of the sense-organs, I am the mind"' (Gītā 10.22), such a separate mention has a meaning. By the scriptural text: '"Come let us assume all become a form of him alone"' (Bṛh. 1.5.21), on the other hand, it is denoted simply that the activities of the sense-organs are under the control of the vital-breath. The sense-organs, also, being under the vital-breath, are called 'vital- breaths',¹ just as in the text: 'All this verily, is Brahman' (Chānd. 3.14.1), the term 'Brahman' has been applied to the world, it being under His control. SŪTRA 18 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL TEXT REGARDING DIFFERENCE AND ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the scriptural mention of the difference" of the chief vital-breath from speech and the rest at the end of the section treating of speech, etc. thus: 'Then, verily, they said to the breath in the mouth' (Bṛh. 1.3.7²); "and on account of the difference" of the sense-organs, the apprehenders of sense-objects, from the best vital-breath, the cause of the subsistence of the body, the sense-organs and the rest,—they are separate entities. ¹ Prāṇa. ² Ś, Bh.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 19. 470 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 8.] Vedānta-kaustubha Having begun thus: 'They said to speech' (Bṛh. 1.3.2), and having concluded the section treating of speech and the rest, destroyed by the demons, Scripture goes on to declare the chief vital-breath as different from the sense-organs like speech, etc. in a passage in a different section: 'Then, verily, they said to the breath in the mouth' (Bṛh. 1.3.7) There is also a great difference between them, such as: the best vital-breath is the cause of the holding up of the body, the sense-organs and so on, while the sense-organs have speech and the rest for their objects, and so on. Hence, the sense-organs are different from the chief vital-breath,—this is the sense. Thus it is established that the sense-organs ¹,—presided over by the gods, connected with the individual soul, and denoted by the term 'sense- organ',—are different from the best vital-breath. Here ends the section entitled "The superintending of fire and the rest" (7). COMPARISON Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva They divide this sūtra into two different sūtras, thus: "Bheda- śruteḥ" and "Vailakṣaṇāc ca". Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "The making of name and form". (Sūtras 19–21) SŪTRA 19 "BUT THE MAKING OF NAME AND FORM (IS THE FUNCTION) OF HIM WHO RENDERS TRIPARTITE, ON ACCOUNT OF TEACHING." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The evolution of names and forms too,—mentioned in the texts: 'That divinity thought: "Come, let me, having entered into these ¹ Prāṇas.

[SŪ. 2. 4 19. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 471 three deities with this living soul, evolve name and forms"' (Chānd 6.3.2 ¹), '"Let me make each of them tripartite"' (Chānd. 6.3 3 ²)— is the work of the Supreme Being alone "who renders tripartite". He alone who made each of the deities tripartite is the creator of names and forms like fire, sun and the rest. Why? Because beginning thus: 'That divinity' (Chānd. 6.3.2), the text goes on to teach that the evolution (of names and forms) is due to the Supreme Deity thus: '"Let me, having entered with this living soul, evolve name and form"' ³ (Chānd. 6.3.2). Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, there being an enquiry with regard to the characteristic marks of the object which one should desire to enquire into (viz. Brahman), it has been established in the preceding chapter ⁴, that He is the cause of the world. Here, on the other hand, with a view to confirming it and demonstrating the cause of the world as held by us, it has been firmly established, after an examination of the cause as designated by others, ⁵ that the ether and the rest are created by Brahman. Then, the author is, now, removing a doubt as to whether the evolution of name and form is due to the Supreme Brahman—a doubt arising from the word 'individual soul' in the scriptural text to be cited hereafter. The evolution of name and form is mentioned in the Chāndogya, under the section teaching of the Existent, in the passages: 'That divinity thought: "Come, let me, having entered into these three deities with the living soul (jīvātman), evolve name and form"' (Chānd. 6.3.2), '"Let me make each of them tripartite"' (Chānd. 6.3.3). The question is: Is this evolution due to the individual soul or to the Supreme Soul? If it be suggested: To the individual soul alone, as indicated by the phrase: 'having entered with this living soul',— We reply. The word "but" is meant for disposing of the prima facie view. "The making of name and form," i.e the evolution of name and form, can be the work "of one who renders tripartite", i.e. of the Supreme Soul alone, omniscient and omnipotent who made ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ² Op. cit. ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ⁴ Vide Br. Sū. 1.1.2. ⁵ In the 2nd pāda of the 2nd chap.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 20. 472 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 8.] each of the deities tripartite. Why? Having begun thus: "That divinity thought" (Chānd. 6 3.2), the text goes on to designate,— through the use of the first person: " 'Let me evolve name and form'" (Chānd. 6.3.2),—the Lord's resolve to evolve names and forms thus: " 'Let me make each of them tripartite' " (Chānd. 6.3.3). Then, for fulfilling this desire, having made each of the deities tripartite prior to the creation of the egg, having then created the egg, and having then entered therein, He made names and forms. The scriptural text about tripartition secondarily implies the process of making each element five-fold. Thus, as the Supreme Brahman alone, who renders tripartite, has been designated as the creator of names and forms; and as the individual soul is incapable of creating names and forms, the evolution is due to the former alone. The motive for using the term 'individual soul' (jīvātman) here will be made clear by the aphorism: "For (Brahman is) without form" (Br. Sū. 3.2.14). SŪTRA 20 "FLESH AND THE REST ARE OF AN EARTHLY NATURE, IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH SCRIPTURAL TEXT, AND THE OTHER TOO." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha That in the body there are the evolutes of fire, water and food, made tripartite, may be ascertained from scriptural text itself, viz. 'From the earth the excreta, flesh and the mind; from water urine, blood and the vital-breath; from fire the bones, marrow and speech'.¹ Vedānta-kaustubha With a view to exhibiting the worthlessness of the physical body, the author is demonstrating that the evolutes of the fire, water and earth, made tripartite, pertain to the body. "Flesh and the rest" should be known, "in accordance with scriptural text", "to be of an earthly nature", i.e. to be arising from, the earth, made tripartite, and of the form of rice, barley and so on consumed by the embodied soul. By the phrase: "and so on", the excreta and the mind are to be understood. The scriptural text is to the effect: 'The food which is consumed becomes three-fold. ¹ Not quoted by others.

[sū. 2. 4. 21. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 473 That which is its grossest portion becomes the excreta, that which is the medium, the flesh; that which is the finest, the mind’ (Chānd. 6 5 1) Similarly, the three evolutes of each “of the other two also”, i e. of water and fire, are to be understood. The urine, blood and the vital-breath,—these are the evolutes of water. The bones, marrow and speech,—these are the evolutes of fire. Here, the vital-breath is taken to be an evolute of water, only because it depends on water for its existence, the vital-breath being really but a special state of the air itself.¹ Likewise, the designation of the earthly nature of the mind is only meant for showing that its well-being depends to the consumption of food ² The evolutes of fire, too, are to be under- stood in a similar manner. SŪTRA 21 “BUT ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIALITY, (THERE IS) THAT DESIGNATION, THAT DESIGNATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “But” they are regarded as different is on the ground of the preponderance of parts Here ends the fourth quarter of the second chapter in the Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, the explanation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā texts by the reverend Nimbārka. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. What is the ground of distinguishing among the evolutes of these three elements, made tripartite,—the author replies: The term “but” is meant for disposing of the objection. On account of the preponderance of one element,³ “the designation”, viz. that this is an evolute of this, this of that and so on, is proper. ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 2.4.9. ² Vide the story of Śvetaketu who failed to remember and recite the Ṛg-verses and so on when he was fasting, but remembered and answered everything when he took food. Vide Chānd. 6.8.7. ³ This explains the compound “Vaiśeṣyāt”

474 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 21 ADH. 8.] The repetition indicates the conclusion of the chapter. Hence it is established that there is no contradiction whatsoever among the scriptural texts which are in concordance with regard to Brahman, Lord Vāsudeva. Here ends the section entitled “The making of name and form” (8). Here ends the fourth quarter of the second chapter of the holy Vedānta-kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of the holy Nimbārka, the founder and the teacher of the sect of the venerable Sanatkumāra. Here ends the second chapter entitled “Non-contradiction”. Résumé The fourth quarter of the second chapter contains— 1 21 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka; 2. 22 sūtras and 9 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṁkara; 3. 19 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja; 4. 22 sūtras and 9 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara; 5 19 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha; 6. 22 sūtras and 15 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva. Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva divide sūtra 18 in Nimbārka’s commentary into two separate sūtras. Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha take sūtras 2 and 3 in Nimbārka’s commentary as one sūtra, also sūtras 14 and 15 as one sūtra. END OF VOLUME I

The provided image appears to be completely blank (solid white) and does not contain any visible text, diagrams, or content to transcribe.

Please provide or re-upload the correct image page.

VOLUME II THIRD CHAPTER (Adhyāya) FIRST QUARTER (Pāda) Adhikarana 1: The section entitled "Obtain- ing what is different from that". (Sūtras 1-7) SŪTRA 1 "IN OBTAINING (A BODY) DIFFERENT FROM THAT (THE SOUL) HASTENS CLOSELY EMBRACED, FROM QUESTION AND DETERMINA- TION." The interpretation of the Brahma-sūtras, entitled the Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, composed by the reverend Nimbārka. The object to be established (viz. Brahman) being definitely ascertained by means of concordance and non-contradiction,¹ now the means (sādhanas) are being determined Here with a view to generat- ing dispassion, the author is, first, exhibiting the soul's going to and returning from the heaven and the rest. The individual soul, having the stated marks ² and possessed of the vital-breath, discarding the present body, goes to another body, as "closely embraced" indeed by the subtle elements. This is known "from question to determina- tion", viz.: 'Do you know how in the fifth oblation water comes to have the speech of man?' (Chānd. 5.3.3 ³) and so on. THE COMMENTARY ENTITLED VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA, COMPOSED BY THE REVEREND ŚRĪNIVĀSA. The object to be resorted to, an ocean of all auspicious attributes, free by nature from all faults and the object which one should desire to enquire after—being determined in the two preceding chapters, ¹ The concordance of all the scriptural texts with regard to Brahman has been demonstrated in the first chapter; and the non-contradiction in the doctrine of the causality of Brahman, in the second. ² Vide Br. Sū. 2 3 16 ff. ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ( 475 )

[SŪ. 3. 1. 1 476 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1] now, on an enquiry into the means of attaining Him, the means are being designated. The first quarter of this first chapter, which explains the meaning of several Vedānta texts and removes a variety of doubts, tries to generate a strong feeling of disgust towards mundane existence by demonstrating the imperfections of the world. The second quarter tries to generate a yearning for Brahman by demonstrating His attributes. In the third quarter, discussions about the difference or non-difference among the meditations on Brahman, as well as the determination of the combination or non-combination of details therein, are undertaken. In the fourth quarter, on the other hand, the doubt being, viz. whether the highest end of men is derived from knowledge or from action, it is established that the highest end of man arises from knowledge, while work, which is without any desire for fruits, is a subsidiary part of knowledge. To begin. In accordance with the texts: 'Then these vital- breaths gather round him' (Bṛh. 4.4.1), 'It makes another newer . . .¹ form' (Bṛh. 4.4.4) the individual soul, accompanied by the vital- breath, the sense-organs and so on, having discarded the prior body, obtains another body with a view to enjoying the fruits of the works done by itself. Here a doubt arises, viz. whether it goes closely embraced by the subtle elements which are the seeds of the future body, or not so embraced? If the prima facie view be: In accordance with the view of the Sāṁkhyas, viz.: 'Wherever, in heaven or in hell, the fruits of work are undergone, there alone the particles of elements, originating the body which is the abode for undergoing the fruits of works, are obtained', the soul is accompanied by these—the author states the correct conclusion. The individual soul "hastens", i.e. goes, "closely embraced", i.e. surrounded indeed by the subtle elements, the substratum of the vital-breath and the rest and the seeds of the future body, "in obtaining (a body) different from that", i.e. when entering another body. Why? "On account of question and determination." The question, to begin with, is contained under the knowledge of five fires,² thus: '"Do you know how in the fifth oblation water comes to have the speech of man?"' (Chānd. 5.3.3). "Determination" means answer, and it, beginning thus: '"In this fire the gods offer reverence. From

¹ "A more auspicious." ² Pañcāgni-vidyā. Vide Chānd. 5.3–5.10.

[sū. 3. 1. 2. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 477 that offering Soma, the king, arises ’ ” (Chānd. 5.4.2) and so on, establishes that water alone, offered to the heaven-world and so on, becomes denotable by that term thus ‘ “In the fifth oblation water comes to have the speech of man” ’ (Chānd 5.9.1). The sense is this : ‘The gods’, i. e. the vital-breaths which are the associates of the individual soul, ‘offer’, i. e. throw, ‘reverence’ to the heaven-world, imagined as fire, and that is transformed into an immortal body, called ‘Soma, the king’. Those very gods offer that body to the fire of cloud; and that body, offered thereto, becomes rain. The very same gods offer that rain to the fire of earth, and that, offered thereto, assumes the form of food. The very same gods offer that food to the fire of person; and offered thereto, that food assumes the form of semen. The very same gods offer that semen to the fire of woman, and that semen, offered thereto, becomes an embryo and obtains the name of a person. In this way, water comes to attain the name of a person. Although acquainted with all this, the king Pravāhaṇa, having put to Śvetaketu the questions about the goal of workers, asked this too thus: ‘Do you know how in the fifth oblation water comes to have the speech of man?’ (Chānd. 5.3.3). Thus asked, Śvetaketu, approaching his father Gautama, said. ‘I have been asked thus by the king, I do not know its answer’. Gautama, himself not knowing it, approached the king and said : ‘Impart that knowledge to us’ Thereupon the king answered Gautama. From such question and answer, it is definitely ascertained that the individual soul goes to another body as closely embraced indeed by the invisible subtle elements. SŪTRA 2 “BUT ON ACCOUNT OF (WATER) CONSISTING OF THE THREE (ELEMENTS), ON ACCOUNT OF PREPONDERANCE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Since water consists of the three elements in accordance with the scriptural text about tripartition,¹ the other two are also to be understood here. The mention of water only, on the other hand, fits in on account of its preponderance. ¹ Vide Chānd. 6.3.3. See Br. Sū. 2.4.19–21.

478 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 1. 3. ADH. 1.] Vedānta-kaustubha Apprehending the objection, viz., since in the question: ‘ “Do you know how in the fifth oblation’ ” (Chānd. 5.3 3), and likewise in the determination (i.e. answer), there is the mention of the term ‘water’, it is known that the soul goes surrounded by water. This being so, it cannot be said that it goes surrounded by all the subtle elements,—the author says: The term “but” is meant for disposing of the objection. Since water consists of the three elements in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘ “Let me make each of them tripartite’ ” (Chānd. 6.3.3), the other two also are understood, viz. food and fire, the rise of the body from mere water being impossible. Why, then, there is the mention of water only in the question as well as in the answer?²— to this the author replies: “On account of preponderance” of water, it alone has been mentioned. Although it appears that in the body there is the preponderance of the earth, since it is observed to be hard, yet on account of there being the preponderance of water in semen and blood, the statement: “On account of preponderance” is perfectly justifiable. COMPARISON Bhāskara Reading different, viz. “Ātmakāt tu . . .”.¹ SŪTRA 3 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE GOING OF THE SENSE-ORGANS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And because of the scriptural declaration of the going of the sense- organs thus “He going out . . . all the sense-organs go out after him” (Bṛh. 4.4.2²), the soul goes, closely embraced indeed by the subtle elements. Vedānta-kaustubha In accordance with the scriptural text: ‘He going out the vital- breath goes out after him. The vital-breath going out, all the sense- ¹ Bh. B. 3 1 2, p. 152. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B

[sū. 3. 1. 4. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 479 organs go out after it’ (Bṛh. 4 4.2); in accordance with the Smṛti passages · ‘ “It draws the sense-organs of which the mind is the sixth” ’ (Gītā 15 7), ‘ “When the lord obtains a body and when he departs from it, he goes taking them, as the wind take fragrances from their abodes” ’ (Gītā 15.8), as well as on account of this going of the sense- organs like speech and the rest together with the chief (vital-breath), the soul goes closely embraced indeed by the subtle elements, as going is not possible on the part of the sense-organs which are without a substratum,—this is the sense SŪTRA 4 “IF IT BE OBJECTED: ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL MENTION OF THE GOING (OF SPEECH AND THE REST) TO FIRE AND THE REST, —(WE REPLY:) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF METAPHORICAL NATURE ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected: Because of the scriptural mention of the “going”, i.e. disappearance, of speech and the rest into fire and so on thus · ‘When the speech of this dead man goes into fire, his breath into the air, his eye into the sun’ (Bṛh. 3 2 13 ¹) and so on, they do not go with the soul,—(we reply ) “No”, “on account of the metaphorical nature” of the text about fire and the rest, it being cited together with the text: ‘His body-hairs to the medicinal herbs, his hairs on the head to the trees’ (Bṛh. 3 2 13 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected · The going of the sense-organs with the individual soul is not justifiable, since the text: ‘When the speech of this dead man goes into fire, his breath into the air, his eye into the sun’ (Bṛh. 3.2 13) mentions the “going”, i e. the disappearance at the time of the death of the body, of the sense-organs like speech and the rest, into the deities like fire and so on,—(we reply :) “No” Why ? “On account of metaphorical nature”. That is, the scriptural ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ² Op. cit.