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

[SŪ. 1. 1. 29. 82 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.] 3.1), i.e. having considered the boon 'yourself', 'choose', i e. give that 'to me' Thus told by Pratardana, Indra said " 'I am the vital- breath, the intelligent Self Worship me, as life, as immortality' " (Kauṣ 3.2); and again, later on. ' "The vital-breath, verily, is the in- telligent self that taking hold of this body, makes it stand up' " (Kauṣ. 3 3), " 'Let none desire to enquire after speech, but let him know the speaker' " (Kauṣ. 3 8), and in conclusion also: ' "Now, this vital-breath itself, forsooth, is the intelligent self, bliss, ageless and immortal' " (Kauṣ. 3.8). Here, the doubt is, viz. whether a certain individual soul is denoted by the words 'Indra' and 'vital- breath', or the Highest Self ? What is reasonable here ? The prima facie view is As the word 'Indra' is well-known to be denoting an individual soul entrusted with a certain office, and as there is a text regarding the object denotable by the term 'Indra', viz. " 'I am the vital-breath' " (Kauṣ. 3.2),—the word 'vital-breath' also denotes 'Indra'. From the text: " 'Worship me as life, as immor- tality' " (Kauṣ. 3.2), he alone is known here as the object to be worshipped. With regard to this, the correct conclusion is as follows "The vital-breath", i e the meaning of the word 'vital-breath' and what is denoted by the words 'Indra' and the rest accompanying it, are the Highest Self alone. Why? ' "On account of intelligibility in that way," ' i e. because qualities like 'highest auspiciousness', 'being the intelligent self', 'bliss', 'agelessness' and the rest are intelligible ' "in that way" ', i.e. only if the Highest Self be understood. Thus, first, it is said in the beginning 'The son of Divodāsa went to the beloved abode of Indra' ¹ (Kauṣ. 3.1), where Indra, conceiving the dependence of his own self on Brahman for its existence and activity, did not think: 'I am Indra'; but, being merged in the bliss of Brahman and conceiving that the sentient and the non-sentient objects have Brahman as their self, reflected: 'Brahman, alone, is all this, I am Brahman'; and looked upon even those who had committed sins as his own self. And, the object to be attained by the Self (viz. Indra) and by those who were equal to the Self (viz. all other beings whom Indra looked upon as his self) was Brahman alone; the means thereto being simply the worship of His feet. Indra told to Pratardana, who had arrived there, i.e. at his so-beloved place: 'Choose a boon'. And, thus ¹ The word 'tāvat' is not included in the quotation.

[sū. 1. 1. 30. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 83 requested, Pratardana too, wishing for the highest goal of men, said to him, who was very modest, free from pride, and desirous of inti- mating the means to the highest goal of men, '"Do you yourself choose a boon for me"' and so on. Thereupon, the vital-breath was taught to Pratardana as the object to be worshipped, in the passage: '"I am the vital-breath"' (Kauṣ. 3 2) and so on. How can the vital-breath, taught thus as the highest goal of men, be an individual soul? How can the text: '"Worship me"' (Kauṣ. 3.2) be intelligible except as designating the worship of the Supreme Brahman? The individual soul, the witness of the three states ¹, being a part and not fit to be attained by another individual soul, is not attainable through the intuition of a knower And (the adjective) 'most beneficial' (in the text '"What you consider to be the most beneficial for mankind"') does not apply to anything else except to the attainment of Brahman. (The qualities like) 'being the intelligent self', 'bliss', 'agelessness', and 'immortality', mentioned in the passages '"Worship me as life, as immortality"' ² (Kauṣ. 2.3), 'This alone, verily, is the intelligent self, bliss, ageless, immortal' (Kauṣ 3 8), fit in only if Brahman be understood, and not otherwise. Hence, the words 'Indra', 'vital- breath' and so on were used by the celebrated Indra with a view to designating Brahman, and not his own self. SŪTRA 30 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (BRAHMAN IS) NOT (DENOTED), ON ACCOUNT OF THE SELF OF THE SPEAKER BEING TAUGHT, (WE REPLY:) BECAUSE THERE IS A MULTITUDE OF REFERENCES TO THE SELF IN IT" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected: The object denoted by the words 'vital-breath' and the rest cannot be Brahman. Why? Because in the text: '"Know me alone"' (Kauṣ 3.1 ³), the very self of the speaker is taught,— ¹ Viz waking, dream, deep sleep. ² Correct quotation translated. 'tam mām' ³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 30. 84 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 11.] (We reply:) ' "In this"' chapter, there is a multitude of references to the Highest Self. Hence, the object denoted by the words 'vital- breath', 'Indra' and the rest is the Highest Self alone. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected. In the aphorism 'The vital-breath, on account of intelligibility in that way' (Br. Sū. 1.1.29), it has been said that the object denoted by the words 'vital-breath', 'Indra' and so on, is Brahman That is not the case. Why? '"On account of the self of the speaker being taught,"' i.e. because the very self of the speaker, viz Indra, who says at first: '"Know me alone"' (Kauṣ. 3.1), and later on: '"I am the vital-breath, the intelligent self"' (Kauṣ 3 2),— his very individual character, well-known from the passage '"I killed the three-headed son of Tvaṣtṛ, I delivered the Arunmukhas, the ascetics, to the wolves "' (Kauṣ. 3.1),—is taught as the object to be worshipped. Thus, the introductory text here refers to the individual soul. This being so, the concluding text too, viz. 'Bliss, ageless, immortal' (Kauṣ. 3.8), should refer to it,— We reply: '"Because there is a multitude of references to the self in it"', i.e. "because", i.e. certainly, "in it", viz in this chapter, there is "a multitude of references to the self", i.e. numerous references to that which is above the (individual) self, viz. the Highest Self; that means, in this chapter there are (mentioned) a great many attributes of the Highest Self. Hence there cannot be any reference to any individual soul like Indra here,—this is the resulting meaning. Thus, the worship of what is the most beneficial, mentioned in the introduc- tory text: '"What you consider to be the most beneficial for mankind"' (Kauṣ. 3.1), is nothing but the worship of the Highest Self, because He alone is the most auspicious Being, as declared by another scriptural text: 'By knowing Him alone, one surpasses death; there is no other way to salvation' (Śvet. 6.15) Similarly, making one do good or evil deeds as declared by the text: 'He alone makes one, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, perform good action. He alone makes one, whom he wishes to lead downwards from these worlds, perform evil action' ¹ (Kauṣ. 3.8), is a quality of the Highest Self alone. Likewise, being the support of all sentient and non-sentient ¹ Correct quotation translated. 'Eṣa hy eva enam . . . . , eṣa u eva enam asādhu karma kārayati taṃ yam adho ninīṣate'. Vide Kauṣ. 3.8, p. 130

[sū. 1. 1. 31. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 85 objects,—depicted by the term 'elements of intelligence' in the text which, beginning thus: 'The vital-breath alone is the intelligent self that, taking hold of the body, makes it stand up' (Kauṣ. 3. 3), goes on: 'As of a chariot the rim of the wheel is fixed on the spokes, and the spokes are fixed on the nave, even so these elements of being are fixed on the elements of intelligence, and the elements of intelligence are fixed on the vital-breath' (Kauṣ. 3.8);—as well as bliss and the rest, mentioned in the text: 'Now, this vital-breath, forsooth, is the intelligent self, bliss, ageless, immortal' (Kauṣ. 3.8), are qualities of the Highest Self alone. 'Being the Self' and 'being the object to be known', mentioned in conclusion in the text: '"Let one know: 'He is my self'"' (Kauṣ. 3.8), are also qualities of the Highest Self. Hence, a great many attributes of the Highest Self being mentioned here, the Highest Self alone is denoted by the terms 'Indra', 'vital- breath' and the rest. SŪTRA 31 "BUT THE INSTRUCTION (GIVEN BY INDRA ABOUT HIMSELF) (IS JUSTIFIABLE) THROUGH SCRIPTURAL INSIGHT, AS IN THE CASE OF VĀMADEVA." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Realizing that everything had Brahman for its soul, Indra properly said "through scriptural insight": '"Know me alone"' (Kauṣ. 3.1¹)—the scriptural text to this effect is: 'What sorrow, what delusion is there of him who perceives the unity' (Īśā. 7²)—, just as Vāmadeva said: '"I was Manu and the sun"' (Bṛh. 1.4.10; Ṛg. V. 4. 26. 1a³). Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz.: Why then did Indra being one, (viz. an individual soul) taught himself as another (viz. Brahman) in the passage: '"Worship me"' (Kauṣ. 3.2)?—it is replied here:— No such objection can be raised. Just as a highly favoured royal servant says to the subjects, even like the king himself, 'I am your 1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. 2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. 3 P. 285, line 8. Not quoted by others.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 31 86 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.] ruler to be worshipped by you', so is the case here. "But through scriptural insight." That is, in the passages, '"Know me alone"' (Kauṣ. 3. 1), '"Worship me"' (Kauṣ. 3. 2), and so on, Indra, who is only an individual soul, taught the Highest Self as his own self, conse- quent of knowing, "through scriptural insight", i.e. from scriptural texts, that the Supreme Brahman is the inner controller and the soul of all. The scriptural texts are the following:—'All this has that for its self, that is true, that is the self, Brahman'¹ (Chānd. 6. 7. 8, 6. 9. 4; 6.10.3; 6.11.3; 6.12.3, 6.13.3; 6.14.3, 6.15.3; 6.16.3), 'All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him, disappearing into him, breathing in him' (Chānd. 3. 1.4.), '"You have, truly, attained freedom from fear, O Janaka!"' (Bṛh. 4. 2. 4), 'Who knows himself: "I am Brahman"'² (Bṛh. 1.4. 10), 'Entered within, the ruler of men, the soul of all' (Tait. Ār. 3. 11. 2³), 'This is your soul, the inner con- troller, immortal' (Bṛh. 3. 7.3, etc.) and so on. Compare the case of Vāmadeva, who intuiting the Highest Self, the Inner Controller of all, through scriptural insight, spoke of Him alone, when he said: 'Seeing this, the sage Vāmadeva understood: "I was Manu and the sun"' (Bṛh. 1.4.10), 'I am the wise Kakṣīvān sage' (Ṛg. V. 4.26.1⁴). Hence the teaching: '"Know me alone"' (Kauṣ. 3.1), etc. is, indeed, proper. COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha He gives two alternative explanations, the last of which tallies with the explanation given by Nimbārka.⁵ ¹ The word 'Brahman' is not included in the original texts. ² Correct quotation: 'ya evam vedāham Brahmāsmī'. Vide Brh. 1.4. 10, p. 45. ³ P. 181. ⁴ The full quotation in Ṛg.V. is: 'I was Manu and the sun, I am the wise Kakṣīvān sage'—said by Indra. ⁵ ŚK. 1.1.31 (p. 288, Part 3).

[sū. 1. 1. 32. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 87 SŪTRA 32 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE CHARACTERISTIC MARKS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL AND THE CHIEF VITAL-BREATH, (BRAHMAN IS) NOT (MEANT), (WE REPLY.) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE THREEFOLDNESS OF MEDITATION, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING REFERRED TO (ELSEWHERE), ON ACCOUNT OF (ITS) SUITABILITY HERE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected. On account of the characteristic marks of the individual soul, mentioned in the passages:—‘Let none desire to enquire into speech, but let him desire to know the speaker’ (Kaus. 3 8¹), ‘I slew the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭṛ’ (Kaus 3 1²); as well as on account of the characteristic marks of the chief vital-breath, mentioned in the passage—‘The vital-breath alone is the intelligent self that taking hold of the body makes it stand up’ (Kaus 3 3³), Brahman is not referred to here,— (We reply.) No, “because of the threefoldness of the meditation” on Brahman, in accordance with the different grades of meditating devotees, viz. (meditation on Brahman) as the Inner Controller of the group of individual souls, as the Inner Controller of the non-sentient objects, and as different from them both, “because it is referred to” (elsewhere); “because it is suitable here” also. Here ends the first quarter of the first chapter in the Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā-texts, and composed by the reverend Nimbārka Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected: Brahman cannot be denoted here by the words ‘vital-breath’ and the rest. Why? “On account of the character- istic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath.” First, the characteristic marks of the individual soul are stated in the passages · ‘Let none desire to enquire after speech, but let him desire to know the speaker’ (Kaus. 3.8), ‘ “I delivered the Arunmukhas, the 1 Ś, R, Bh, B. 2 R, ŚK, Bh, B. 3 Ś, R, Bh, B.

[SŪ 1. 1 32, 88 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.] ascetics, to the wolves'” (Kaus. 3 1) and so on; and the characteristic marks of the chief vital-breath are stated in the passage ‘Now, verily, the vital-breath alone is the intelligent soul that taking hold of this body makes it stand up’ (Kaus. 3.1). Hence it is not possible that Brahman is referred to here,— (We, reply:) “No.” Why ? “On account of the threefoldness of meditation, on account of being referred (elsewhere), on account of (its) suitability here.” That is, the designation of Brahman by such and such terms (viz. Indra and the vital-breath) is for the sake of teaching the threefoldness of meditation, just as elsewhere three kinds of meditation on Brahman are referred to. There (viz. in the Taittirīya-upaniṣad) Brahman is recommended to be meditated on in His own nature in the passages: ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite’ (Tait. 2.1), ‘Brahman is bliss’ (Tait. 3.6); and to be medi- tated on as the inner soul of the sentient and the non-sentient, as well as the soul of all in the passages ‘Having created that, he entered into that very thing. Having entered it, He became real and that, defined and undefined, based and non-based, knowledge and non-knowledge’ (Tait. 2.6). In the same manner “on account of its suitability”, i.e. on account of the suitability of such a threefoldness, “here”, i.e. in the Pratardanavidyā as well, there is no divergence among the texts, the whole group of texts referring to one and the same Brahman. This should be understood here: If a text be ascertained from the introduction and the rest to be referring to Brahman, then if there be marks of anything else therein, those, too, should be referred to Brahman, who is the inner controller of that thing, who possesses it as His power, and who is the object to be meditated on. Hence, it is established that the object indicated by the words ‘Indra’, ‘vital- breath’ and the rest is the Highest Self. Here ends the section entitled ‘Indra and the vital-breath’ (11). —————— Here ends the first section of the first chapter in the Vedānta- kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, and composed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of the reverend Nimbārka, the founder and teacher of the sect of the reverend Sanatkumāra.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 32. ADH 11.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 89 COMPARISON Śaṃkara This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. Reading same. He gives two alternative explanations of the second part of the sūtra, viz. the reply to the objection, thus.— (1) ‘If it be objected . . . , (then, we reply:)—On account of the threefoldness of meditation, (i.e. your interpretation would involve the assumption of devout meditation of three kinds, viz. on the individual soul, on the chief vital-breath and on Brahman, but one and the same section cannot teach three different kinds of things). (Moreover, the word “vital-breath” must denote Brahman here,) on account of (that meaning) being accepted (elsewhere), on account of connection here (i.e in the passage itself characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned). (Hence the conclusion is that Brahman is the topic of the whole chapter.)’ This interpretation is different from Nimbārka’s interpretation. Or, ‘If it be objected . . . , (then, we reply:) (the charac- teristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath are not out of place in a chapter which deals with Brahman) on account of the threefoldness of meditation (i e. because this chapter aims simply at advocating thereby the three ways of meditating on Brahman, viz. under the aspect of the prāṇa, under the aspect of prajñā, and in itself, according as Brahman is viewed either with reference to the two limiting adjuncts, or in itself); because (in other passages also we find that meditation on Brahman is) made dependant (on Brahman being qualified by limiting adjuncts—cf. Chānd. 3.14 2); because (the hypothesis that Brahman is meditated on under three aspects) is perfectly consistent here (i e. in the prāṇa chapter ¹). This inter- pretation too does not tally with Nimbārka’s interpretation, for Nimbārka does not hold that the sentient and the non-sentient— under the aspects of which Brahman is meditated on—are limiting adjuncts of Brahman.- Rāmānuja Reading and interpretation same. According to Rāmānuja, the three kinds of meditation are:— (1) Meditation on Brahman in His own nature as the cause of the world, (2) meditation on Brahman as ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― 1 Ś B. 1.1 31, pp 255 ff.

[sū. 1. 1. 32 90 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 11.] having the totality of the enjoying souls as His body (i e. as the inner soul of the sentient), and (3) meditation on Brahman as having the objects and means of enjoyment for His body (i e as the inner soul of the non-sentient) ¹ Bhāskara This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. Reading different—viz omits the portion ‘Āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt’. Two alternative interpretations given, the first (the author’s own view) exactly like Śaṃkara’s first explanation; the second (the view of others: ‘apare tu’, etc.) like Nimbārka’s explanation ² Śrīkaṇṭha Reading and interpretation same. He points out, exactly after Rāmānuja, that the three kinds of meditations on the Lord are— svarūpeṇa, bhoktṛ-śarīreṇa and bhogya-rūpeṇa.³ Baladeva This is sūtra 31 in Baladeva. His interpretation is like Śaṃkara’s first interpretation.⁴ Résumé The first quarter of the first chapter contains.— (1) 32 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka; (2) 31 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṃkara; (3) 32 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja; (4) 31 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara; (5) 32 sūtras and 12 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha; (6) 31 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva. Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva omit sūtra 9 in Nimbārka’s commentary. ¹ Śrī. B. 1.1.32, p. 224, vol. 1.:—‘Nikhila-kāraṇa-bhūtasya Brahmaṇaḥ svarūpeṇānusandhānam, bhoktṛ-varga-śarīrakatvānusandhānam, bhogya-bhogopa- karaṇa-śarīrakatvānusandhānañ ceti trividham anusandhānam upadeṣṭum ity- arthaḥ’ ² Bh. B. 1.1.31, pp 35-36. ³ ŚK. B. 1.1.32, pp. 291-92, Part 3. ⁴ G.B 1.1.31.

FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyāya) SECOND QUARTER (Pāda) Adhikarana 1: The section entitled ‘Celebrity everywhere’. (Sūtras 1-8) SŪTRA 1 “(THAT WHICH CONSISTS OF MIND IS BRAHMAN), BECAUSE OF THE TEACHING OF WHAT IS CELEBRATED EVERYWHERE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Beginning ‘All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him disappearing into him and breathing in him,—tranquil, let one medi- tate on him thus’ (Chānd. 3.14.1 ¹), Scripture continues: ‘Consisting of mind, having the vital breath for his body’ (Chānd 3.14.2 ²). Here, the object which is to be meditated on as consisting of mind is to be understood as the Highest self, the cause of all, and not as the individual soul. Why? Because the highest self alone, celebrated in all the Vedāntas, is taught in the above passages, viz. ‘All this, verily, is Brahman’ (Chānd. 3.14.1) Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, in the first section, the concordance of the scriptural texts with regard to the holy Lord Vāsudeva has been shown,—He who is the object of enquiry, the greatest Being, the cause of the origin and ‘the rest of the world, having Scripture for His sole proof, omniscient, without an equal or a superior and the one mass of infinite auspicious qualities. Now, in the following two sections, the reverend teacher of the Veda is showing that those texts,—some of which indistinctly indicate the individual soul and the rest, and some of which distinctly do so,—all refer to Him alone. The Chāndogas record the following ‘All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him, disappearing into him, and breathing in him,— tranquil, let one meditate (on him) thus. Now, a person consists of ¹ Ś, R, Bh, B.      ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 1. 92 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] determination. According to what his determination is in this world, so does he become on departing hence Let him form a determination. He who consists of mind, has the vital-breath for his body, is of the form of light' (Chānd. 3 14.1-2 ¹) and so on. Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether the individual soul ² should be understood as the object to be meditated on, possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest, or the Highest self. What is reasonable here ? (Prima facie view.) If it be suggested: The individual soul. Why? Because the individual soul is well-known to have the mind and the vital-breath as its instruments, because Scripture declares that Lord Brahman, the Supreme Being, has no connection with mind and the vital-breath, in the passage 'Without the vital-breath, without mind, pure' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.2); and, finally, because having the heart for its abode as well as being atomic, stated in the passage 'This is the soul ³ within the heart, smaller than a grain of rice, or a barley-corn' (Chānd 3.14.3), are possible in the case of the limited individual soul alone. If it be objected: of the six proofs, viz scriptural statement, mark, text, topic, place and name, each succeeding one is weaker than the preceding one. Of these, scriptural statement means an independent statement, and mark means the power of words (to indicate some meaning). Now, here, the scriptural statement, viz.: 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chānd. 3.14.1), is of a greater force than the mark of the individual soul, viz consisting of mind and the rest, it being mentioned first, (the rule being that of these six, each preceding one is of a greater force than each succeeding one). Hence, Brahman alone, mentioned above, is to be construed here as the object to be meditated on,―(we reply:) no, because as that text fulfils its purpose simply by teaching, as a means to the attainment of tranquillity, that everything has Brahman for its soul, thus. 'Tranquil, let one meditate', so it is not concerned with laying down any injunction regarding the meditation on Brahman (here ends the original Prima facie view) . . .

¹ This passage occurs also in Śat. Br. 10.6.3. It forms a part of the famous Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, or the Doctrine of Śāṇḍilya. For a further account see footnote (5), p. 1078 f. ² 'Kṣetrajña, means 'Knower of the field', or the body, i.e. the soul, the conscious principle in the corporeal frame. ³ Correct quotation. 'Eṣa ma ātmā . . .' Vide Chānd. 3 14.3, p. 158.

[sū. 1. 2. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 93 (Correct conclusion) We reply—The highest soul alone, possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest, is the object to be meditated on. Why? "Because" the cause of the origin and the rest of the world, "celebrated everywhere", i.e. in all the Vedāntas, "is taught" as the cause of all, as the soul of all, here in the text: 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chānd. 3.14.1). Or, else, "because" the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the rest, "celebrated" in all the Vedāntas as belonging to the Supreme Brahman, thus: 'Consisting of mind, leader of the vital-breath and the body' (Muṇḍ. 2.2.7), 'This ether that is within the heart,—therein is the person, consisting of mind' (Tait. 1.6), and so on, "are taught". Of these, 'consisting of mind' means 'capable of being apprehended by a purified mind'; 'having the vital-breath for the body' means 'being the support and the ruler of even the vital-breath', 'without the vital-breath' means 'abiding in- dependently of the vital-breath'; and 'without mind' means 'having knowledge not dependent on the mind'. Or, else, the text: 'All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him, disappearing into him, and breathing in him;—tranquil, let one meditate (on him) thus' (Chānd. 3.14.1) enjoins meditation, thus: 'Let one meditate on Brahman, the soul of all, in a tranquil spirit'. The text: 'Let him form a determination' (Chānd. 3.14.1) is a repeti- tion (of the same injunction), with a view to proving that the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the rest belong to the very same Being, mentioned above, (viz. Brahman). Let one meditate on Brahman, the soul of all and possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest,—this is the sense of the text. Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether Brahman, indicated as the soul of all, is the individual soul, or the Highest self. What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: The individual soul. Why? Because, it alone can possibly assume the forms of all kinds of beings, Brahmā and so on, due to karmas, based on beginningless nescience; while it is never possible for the Supreme Brahman to assume identity with all sorts of low or vile forms, since He is endowed with (the attributes of) omniscience, omnipotence, freedom from sins, freed on by nature from all faults and so on. The word 'Brahman' too, applies to the individual soul alone, it being endowed with great qualities (like knowledge and the like). And the origin and the rest of the world being due to karmas, it is reasonable to indicate the individual soul as their cause,—

[SŪ. 1. 2. 1. 94 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 1.] We reply "Because of the teaching of what is celebrated every- where", i e. the meaning of the word 'Brahman,' who is designated as the soul of all and as the cause of the origin and the rest of all, is the Highest Self alone. For this very reason, "everywhere", i e in the Vedāntas, he is "taught" to be "celebrated" as the cause of the origin and the rest of the world—because of this, and also because it is impossible that the origin and the rest of the world can be due to the individual soul, since in the passages—"He desired. 'May I be many, may I procreate' . . He created all this" (Tait. 2.6) and so on, the Supreme Lord alone is celebrated to be the cause of the world This is stated in the 'Law of salvation' ¹. Beginning. "'Whence has arisen this entire world, consisting of the immovable and the movable, and to whom does it go during universal dissolution ? Tell me that, O grandfather! By whom has this world, together with the oceans, the sky, mountains, cloud, lands, fire and air, been made?'" (Mahā. 12.6765-66 ²), having stated 'The scripture which was related by Bhṛgu to Bhāradvāja, who asked' (Mahā 12 6769C ³); having stated the origin of all beings thus 'Of him who is called Nārāyaṇa, who is unchangeable, the imperishable soul, who is unmanifest, unknowable, higher than prakṛti;' ⁴ and having stated: 'Then, a lustrous, celestial lotus was created by the self-born. From that lotus arose Brahmā, the Lord, consisting of the Veda' (Mahā. 12 6779 C–89A ⁵),—the text designates Lord Kṛṣṇa, Nārāyaṇa, Brahman, as the cause of all sentient beings and non-sentient objects, thus: 'For he is difficult to be known, undoubtedly inconceivable in nature even by the perfected souls. He, verily, is Lord Viṣṇu, cele- brated to be infinite, abiding as the inter controller of all beings, difficult to be known by those who have not obtained the self,—who is the creator of this principle of egoism for the production of all beings, from whom arose the universe, about whom I have been asked by you here' (Mahā. 12.6784–86A ⁶). Hence, the Highest Self ¹ Mokṣa-dharma is the name of a section of the 12th book of the Mahā- bhārata, from Adhyāya 174 to the end. ² P. 604, lines 3-4, vol. 3. ³ Op cit., line 7 ⁴ This is not traceable in any of the three editions, Asiatic Society, Vanga- vāsī and Bombay. ⁵ P. 604, lines 17-18 (vol. 3). This verse is not found in the Bombay edition. ⁶ P. 604, lines 22–24.

[sū. 1. 2. 2. ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 95 alone is denoted by the word ‘Brahman’ here, and not the individual soul.¹ COMPARISON Rāmānuja Reading same. He gives two alternative interpretations, which tally with the last two explanations of Śrīnivāsa.² SŪTRA 2 “AND BECAUSE OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ATTRIBUTES INTENDED TO BE STATED.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And because the attributes, viz. ‘consisting of mind,’ ‘having true resolves’ and the rest, “intended to be stated” in the text: ‘Consisting of mind, having the vital-breath for the body, of the form of light, having true resolves’ (Chānd. 3 14 2 ³) and so on, are ‘appropriate’ on the part of Brahman alone Vedānta-kaustubha As the attributes of ‘having true resolves’ and the rest, ‘intended to be stated’ as the peculiar attributes of Brahman in the passage ‘Consisting of mind, having the breath for the body, of the form of light, having true resolves, having the ether as the soul, having all desires, having all odours,⁴ . . . having all tastes, pervading all this, unspeaking, indifferent’ (Chānd. 3.14.2) and so on, are “appro- priate” on the part of Brahman alone,—so Brahman alone is under- stood in the above text. The adjective ‘pervading all this’ means that He has accepted ‘all this’—i.e. the sentient and the non-sentient objects, ending with ‘taste’,—as His own; ‘unspeaking’ means that He abides in silence because of His unsurpassed graveness; ‘indifferent’ means that ‘He has no concern’. ¹ Śrīnivāsa gives altogether three explanations of this Sūtra, the first of which tallies with the explanation of Nimbārka. ² Śrī. B. 1 2.1. Pp. 231 et seq. Part 1. ³ R. B. ⁴ The original text reads ‘sarva-karma’ after this.

96 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 2, 3. ADH. 1.] SŪTRA 3 "BUT ON ACCOUNT OF INAPPROPRIATENESS, NOT THE EMBODIED (SOUL)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha He who is possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest is the Supreme Being alone, and not the individual soul, because (the attributes like) 'consisting of mind', 'having true re- solves' and so on, are "inappropriate" on its part. Vedānta-kaustubha Brahman alone is to be understood as consisting of mind, for the purpose of meditation, and not "the embodied", i.e. the indivi- dual soul, possessing a body. Why? Because the attributes of 'having true resolves' and the like are "inappropriate" on the part of the individual soul. Moreover, the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the rest too, are inappropriate on the part of the indivi- dual soul. Thus, the text says: 'Let him form a determination' (Chānd. 3.14.1) Of what kind is he? 'Consisting of mind', again, 'having the vital-breath for his body'. These adjectives are not appropriate on the part of the individual soul, because no such implication is involved here, nor any purpose. But all these are appropriate on the part of the Highest self. Thus, when it is said: Let the worshipper, whether he desires for salvation, or for any particular fruit, 'form a determination', i.e. perform meditation or action, in a 'calm' spirit, the question arises: In reference to whom is he to perform meditation or action? and in reply, the Highest Person, the soul of all, and indicated above in the passage: 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chānd. 3 14.1), is pointed out as the object to be meditated on. And, this text: 'Consisting of mind, having the vital-breath for the body' (Chānd. 3.14.2) and so on refers to Brahman. Hence the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the rest are not appropriate on the part of the individual soul. COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha Reading same, interpretation different. According to Śrīkaṇṭha, a new adhikaraṇa begins with this sūtra (sūtras 3–8), concerned with

[sū. 1. 2. 4. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 97 the question whether a passage in the Mahā-nārāyaṇa-upaniṣad (Mahānār. 11 3) refers to Nārāyaṇa or to Śiva Thus —‘(The passage refers to Śiva, and not (to) the embodied (i e Nārāyaṇa), because (the attributes of being the Lord of the universe and the rest) are not appropriate (on the part of Nārāyaṇa)’.¹ SŪTRA 4 “AND BECAUSE OF THE DESIGNATION OF OBJECT AND AGENT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha For this reason too, the object qualified by the adjectives ‘con- sisting of mind’ and the rest is not the embodied soul, “because of the designation of object and agent” in the text: ‘On departing hence, I shall reach him’ (Chānd. 3 14.4 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason, too, that which consists of mind and has breath for its body is not to be understood as the embodied soul. Why? “Because of the designation” of the embodied soul as the “agent”, i.e. as the worshipper, and “because of the designation” of the Highest Self as the ‘object’, i e as the object to be meditated on and obtained, in the passage: ‘On departing hence, I shall reach him’ (Chānd. 3.14.4). That is, ‘I’, or one desiring for salvation, ‘shall reach’, i.e. shall obtain, ‘him’, i.e. Brahman, mentioned before as possessed of the attributes of ‘consisting of mind’ and the rest, ‘hence’, i.e after the fall of the body, after the destruction of the works which have begun to bear fruits A worshipper who is endowed with such a right insight attains Brahman. COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha Reading same, interpretation different, viz.: ‘(The supreme soul, viz. Śiva, the object to be meditated on, is other than Nārāyaṇa), because of the designation of the object and the agent, (i.e. because ¹ ŚK. B. 1.1.3, pp. 318 et seq, Part 4. ² Ś, R, Bh, B. 7

[SŪ. 1. 2. 5. 98 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.] Śiva is designated to be the object to be worshipped, Nārāyaṇa, the worshipper).¹ SŪTRA 5 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF WORDS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha That which possesses the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the like is the Highest Self, different from the embodied soul, because in the text: 'This soul of mine within the heart' (Chānd. 3.14.3, 4²) the individual soul and the Highest Self are denoted by different words, viz the genitive and the nominative respectively. Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason, too, that which possesses the attributes of con- sisting of mind and so on, is the highest self, different from the embodied soul. Why? "On account of the difference of words", i e. because of another scriptural passage of kindred subject-matter, viz. 'Like a grain of rice, or a barley-corn, or a grain of millet, or the kernel of a grain of millet, such is the Golden Person within the self' (Śat. Br. 10.6.3 2), there is "difference of words", viz. the locative 'within the self' denotes the embodied self, while the nominative 'the Golden Person' denotes the Highest self.³ COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha Reading same, interpretation different, viz. ('Brahman, viz. Śiva, is other than and superior to Nārāyaṇa) on account of a particular word (or scriptural passage) (to that effect)'.⁴ 1 ŚK. B. 1.2.4, pp. 322–324, Part 4. 2 R, B. 3 Note that Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa refer to two different passages here. 4 ŚK. B. 1.2.5. (Pp. 324-25, Part 4.)

[SŪ. 1. 2 6. ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 99 SŪTRA 6 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF SMṚTI" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And on account of the Smṛti" text:—'The Lord abides, O Arjuna! in the heart-region of all beings' (Gītā 18.61 ¹), there is a difference between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. Vedānta-kaustubha '"He who sees me everywhere, and sees everything in me, of him I will never lose hold, and he shall never lose hold of me"' (Gītā 6 30), '"He who, established in unity, worships me as abiding within all beings, that ascetic abides in me, under whatever circumstances he may live"' (Gītā 6.31), '"There is nothing higher than me, O Dha- nañjaya! All this is strung on me, like gems on a string"' (Gītā 7.7), '"And I abide within the heart of all, and from me memory, knowledge and their absence"' (Gītā 15.15), '"The Lord abides, O Arjuna! in the heart-region of all, causing all beings to revolve by His mysterious power, as if mounted on a machine"' (Gītā 18.61), '"Because I excel the perishable and am superior even to the imperish- able, I am celebrated in the world, and in the Veda as the Highest Person"' (Gītā 15.18) The following scriptural texts too are referred to by the term "and" (in the sūtra). ² 'The two unborn ones, the knower and the non-knower, the Lord and the non-Lord' (Śvet. 1.9), 'The Lord of matter and souls, the ruler of the attributes' (Śvet. 6.16), 'The eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious' (Śvet. 6.13; Kaṭha 5 13) and so on. From such Smṛti and scrip- tural texts, it is to be known that there is a difference between the individual soul and Brahman. Thus, in this section, the difference between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul is indicated by the reverend author of the aphorisms in four aphorisms; ³ and this view is most reasonable, since it is established by both Smṛti and Scripture. The Highest Self is ever-free, omniscient, independent, all-pervading ¹ Ś, R, Bh, B. ² Note the different interpretations of the word 'Ca' in the sūtra, as given by Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa. According to the former, it simply means 'also', while according to the latter, 'on account of scriptural texts'. ³ Viz Br. Sū 1.2 3–6.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 7. 100 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.] without an equal or a superior, the soul of all and the controller of all. The individual soul, on the other hand, though of the nature of eternal knowledge, has, as is well-known, its attribute of knowledge enveloped by the beginningless māyā, is subject to bondage and release, possessed of little knowledge, a part of Brahman, but through its aversion to the Lord, revolves through many births owing to the works done by itself. Non-difference also, established by the scriptural texts like 'He is the self, thou art that' (Chānd. 6.9.4, 6.10.3, etc.), 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chānd. 3.14.1), 'This soul is Brahman' (Bṛh. 4.4.5) and so on, is most reasonable. Thus, the reverend author of the aphorisms will speak about the nature of difference and non- difference, as held by himself, under the aphorism: 'A part, on account of the designation of variety' (Br. Sū. 2.3.42) and so on. We shall speak of it in detail in the same place.¹ COMPARISON Śaṃkara Reading and interpretation same. But in conclusion, he adds his own view, viz. that this difference between the individual soul and Brahman is not real, but due to limiting adjuncts only.² Śrīkaṇṭha Reading same, interpretation different, viz. 'On account of Smṛti' (viz. Gītā 11.9) Nārāyaṇa is the worshipper—i.e. different from Śiva.³ SŪTRA 7 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS OCCUPYING A SMALL ABODE, AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF THAT, (BRAHMAN IS) NOT (THE OBJECT OF MEDITATION), (WE REPLY:) NO, BECAUSE (BRAHMAN) IS TO BE CONCEIVED THUS, AS IN THE CASE OF THE ETHER." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that on account of its having a small abode, as mentioned in the text: 'This soul of mine within the heart' (Chānd. ¹ Vide V.K. 2.3.42. ² Ś.B. 1.2.7, p. 265. ³ ŚK. B. 1.2.7, pp. 325-26, Part 4.

[sū. 1. 2. 7. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 101 3.14 3), also on account of the designation of its smallness in the text : ‘Smaller than a grain of rice, or’ (Chānd. 3.14 3; Śat. Br. 10 6.3 2¹), (the object of meditation) here is not Brahman,— (We reply ) “Not so”, because Brahman is to be meditated on in that way. Minuteness on the part of a great thing, however, fits in, as in the case of a window and the ether. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected.—Brahman cannot be understood here as the object of meditation. Why? “On account of its occupying a small abode and on account of the designation of that ” That is, that which has a small abode, i e. place, viz. the individual soul which is like the tip of the spoke of a wheel, is ‘arbhakaukas’, the state of that is ‘arbhakaukastvam’, on account of that,²—the resulting meaning being: ‘on account of the characteristic mark of the individual soul’. That is to say, occupying a limited place, viz. the heart, is the attribute of the individual soul only, and not the attribute of Brahman. More- over, “on account of the designation” of smallness by that very term (viz ‘small’), in the passage ‘Smaller than a grain of rice, or a barley-corn’ (Chānd. 3.14 3; Śat. Br. 10 6 3.2), the individual soul alone is to be understood here, and not Brahman,— (We reply ) “No.” Why? It is “because (Brahman) is to be conceived thus”,—i e. “Because (Brahman) is to be conceived”, or to be meditated on, “thus”, i.e. as abiding within the heart, small in size,—that the Highest Self is designated in that way. And, hereby His omnipresence is not contradicted. For, He is designated to be minute with the object of designating a particular kind of medita- tion on Him as very subtle. Nor, again, does He become small in size (i.e small like the heart) hereby, since the text: ‘Greater than the earth, greater than the sky’ (Chānd. 3 14.3) speaks of the great- ness of the Lord. An analogous case is the following Just as the ether, though all-pervasive, is spoken of as occupying a small place and as small in reference to the eye of a needle, so is Brahman, the topic of discussion,—this is the sense. ¹ P. 806, line 18. ² This explains the compound ‘arbhakaukastvāt’.