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

[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’.

102 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 2. 8. ADH. 1.] COMPARISON Śaṃkara Reading and interpretation same. He points out that just as the Lord of the entire universe may be appropriately said to be the Lord of Ayodhyā, so the Supreme Soul, abiding everywhere, may very well be denoted as abiding within the heart ¹ Rāmānuja Reading same, interpretation of the word ‘vyomavac ca’ different, viz —‘(The Lord is described to be) like the ether as well (i e all-pervading as well, in that very passage, viz. Chānd. 3 14 3 ²).’ Hence the Lord is not really minute by nature, but is simply designated to be so for the purpose of meditation Śrīkaṇṭha Reading and literal interpretation same, though this topic is different, as noted above ³ Baladeva Reading same, interpretation of the word ‘vyomavac cā’ different, viz. ‘(The Lord though atomic as abiding within the heart of men, is yet all-pervading) like the ether (as declared by the same passage, viz. Chānd. 3.14 3 ⁴)’. And this is possible because the Lord is possessed of inconceivable powers. SŪTRA 8 “ IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (IF BRAHMAN WERE TO DWELL WITHIN THE HEART, THEN) THERE FOLLOWS EXPERIENCE (OF PLEASURES AND PAINS), (WE REPLY:) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that owing to His connection with all hearts, “there will follow experience ” of pleasure and pain on the part of ¹ Ś.B. 1.2.7, p. 266. ² Śrī. B. 1.2.7, p 237, vol 1 ³ ŚK. B. 1 2.7 p. 327, Part 1 ⁴ G.B 1 2.7, p. 114, Chap. 1. Note the difference from Rāmānuja.

[sū. 1. 2. 8. ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 103 Brahman, as on the part of the individual soul,—(we reply.) no such objection can be raised, because there is an absolute difference between the individual soul and Brahman, as the soul is an enjoyer of the fruits of the works done by itself, while Brahman is ever-free from sins. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected. Owing to its connection with a single heart, there results experience of pleasures and pains on the part of the individual soul. Owing to His connection with all hearts simul- taneously, there certainly results experience of all pleasures and pains everywhere on the part of the all-pervading Highest Self. If this be so, then the Highest Self, as the enjoyer of pleasures and pains, will inevitably become subject to all sorts of faults, as the individual soul itself is. Hence even the Supreme Being will be subject to karmas,— (We reply:) “No.” “On account of difference (vaiśeṣyāt)” The word “vaiśeṣyāt” is formed by adding the suffix ‘ṣyañ’ to the word ‘viśeṣa’ in an identical sense, (viz difference) or to indicate excessive difference. That the individual soul is an enjoyer of the fruits of works performed by itself and the Supreme Soul is just the opposite is established in Scripture, in accordance with the Smṛti- passage: ‘Of these, He who is the Supreme Self is said to be eternal and free from the properties of matter. . . . ¹ He is not affected even by the fruit, as a lotus-leaf is not touched by water. The active self, on the other hand, is another, who is liable to release and bondage’ (Mahā. 12.13754-13755 ²), and the declaration of the Lord Himself. ‘Works do not affect me, I have no desire for fruits of works’ (Gītā 4.14). Thus, on account of an absolute difference between these two, it follows that the individual soul alone experiences pleasures and pains, and not the Supreme Soul. Hence it is established that that which consists of mind and has the breath for its body, is none but the Highest Self. Here ends the section entitled ‘Celebrity everywhere’ (1). ¹ One line omitted, viz. ‘Sa hi Nārāyaṇa jñeyaḥ sarvātmā puruṣo hi saḥ’ ² P 852, lines 9-10, vol 3.

[sū. 1. 2. 8 104 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1 ] COMPARISON Śaṃkara Reading and literal interpretation same. Here, too, he is forced to add his usual explanation that the difference between the individual soul and Brahman is not real, but only phenomenal.¹ Rāmānuja Interpretation of the word ‘vaiśeṣyāt’ different. According to Nimbārka, ‘vaiśeṣyāt’ means ‘on account of the difference of nature between the individual soul and Brahman’; while according to Rāmānuja, it means ‘on account of the difference of the cause of enjoyment’²; i. e. it is not abiding within the body which is the cause of undergoing pleasure and pain, but being subject to karmas, which is never possible in the case of the Lord.³ Bhāskara Reading and interpretation same. The example cited is appro- priate—Simply because the Lord abides within the heart, it does not follow that He shares its experiences, for there is no rule that co- existence and the consequent inter-relation imply the sharing of the same attributes. The ether, e. g. though in connection with a burning place, does not burn itself.⁴ Śrīkaṇṭha Reading and literal interpretation same, though the topic is different, as noted above.⁵ ————————————————————————————————————————— ¹ Ś.B 1.2.8, p. 268 ² ‘Hetu-vaiśeṣyāt.’ ³ Śrī. B 1.2.8, p. 238, vol 1. ⁴ Bh. B 1 2.8, p. 40. ⁵ ŚK. B. 1 2.8, pp. 327 et seq., Part 4

[SŪ. 1. 2. 9. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 105 Adhikarana 2 The section entitled 'The eater' (Sūtras 9-10) SŪTRA 9 "THE EATER (IS BRAHMAN), ON ACCOUNT OF THE COMPREHENSION (OR TAKING, I.E. DEVOURING) OF THE MOVABLE AND THE IM- MOVABLE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: 'He to whom both the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya are the food and death the condiment, who thus knows where He is?' (Kaṭha 2.25 ¹), the eater is the Lord, the Highest Person, "on account of the comprehension (or taking, i.e. devouring)" ² of the food which has death for its condiment, i.e of the Universe, consisting of the movable and the immovable, implied by the terms 'Brāhmaṇa' and 'Kṣatriya' Vedānta-kaustubha In the preceding section, after having shown that the text: 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chānd. 3 14.1) and so on refers to Brahman, the author has shown also the absence of any experience of pleasure and pain due to karma on the part of Brahman. Now, by showing that the text: 'He, of whom the Brāhmaṇa' (Kaṭha 2 25) and so on refers to Him, he removes the suspicion, that, as before, He cannot be an eater of the movable and the immovable ³ In the Kaṭha-vallī it is recorded 'He, to whom both the Brāh- maṇa and the Kṣatriya are the food and death the condiment, who thus knows where He is?' (Kaṭha 2 25). Here by the word 'food' edible objects are understood, and by the words 'of whom', indicating connection, an eater is understood. A doubt arises, viz. whether the eater here is fire, or the individual soul, or the Supreme Soul, since here all the three have been referred to before. What is reasonable ¹ ŚK. B 1 2.8, pp 327 et seq., Part 4 ² It is not clear what Nimbārka means exactly by the term 'grahaṇa' here. It may mean appropriately both 'understanding' and 'taking or devour- ing'. Thus, Brahman is the eater, because the movable and the immovable are understood as the food here; or because, the movable and the immovable are devoured as the food here. The same remarks apply to Śrīnivāsa's interpretation. ³ I.e it may be thought that since Brahman is not an enjoyer, as shown above, He cannot be an eater too

[SŪ. 1. 2 10. 106 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 2.] here? If it be suggested: First, let fire be the eater here, because it is well-known to have the power of burning the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya; and because the scriptural text.—‘Fire is the eater of food’ (Bṛh. 1.4.6) declares so. Or, let the individual soul be the eater, because it is well-known to be an enjoyer, because the scriptural text· ‘Of the two, the one tastes sweet berry’ (Śvet. 4.6; Muṇḍ 3.1.1) declares so, and, finally, because in the preceding section, (viz. Br. Sū. 1 2 8) it alone has been established to be an enjoyer. In accordance with the negative text. ‘Without eating’ (Śvet 4.6, Muṇḍ 3 1.1), as well as on the ground of the negation, of experience in the preceding section (viz. Br. Sū 1 2.8), the Highest Self cannot be understood as the eater here,— We reply: Here the eater can possibly be the Highest Self alone. Whence is this known? “On account of the comprehension (or taking, i e. devouring ¹) of the movable and the immovable,” i e. because here the movable and the immovable are understood to be the food. If it be objected that the words ‘movable’ and ‘immovable’ are not found here,—(we reply) It may be so, (yet that does not falsify our view), because by the terms ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and ‘Kṣatriya’, the movable and the immovable are understood metaphorically; and because there being a natural connection between death and the movable and the immovable, that food which has death for its condiment, viz. the movable and the immovable, is understood here. Hence the eater is the Highest Self, the destroyer of the Universe,—this is the resulting meaning, for neither fire, nor the individual soul, can possibly be the eater of the entire world. The text ‘Without eating’ (Śvet. 4 6; Muṇḍ 3.1 1) denies any experience of the fruits of works on the part of the Lord SŪTRA 10 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE TOPIC.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The eater is the Lord, the Highest Person, because He alone is mentioned as the topic of discussion in the text ‘The great, the all- pervading’ (Kaṭha 2.22 ²). ¹ See footnote (2), previous page. ² R, ŚK.

[sū. 1 2. 11. ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 107 Vedānta-kaustubha As the Highest Self is mentioned as the topic of discussion in the texts: 'Knowing the great, all-pervasive self' (Kaṭha 2.22), 'By him is (He) attainable, whom alone he chooses' (Kaṭha 2 23; Muṇḍ. 3.2.23), and as a peculiar mark of the Lord, viz. unintelligibleness, is mentioned in the passage 'Who thus knows where He is?' (Kaṭha 2.25), it is established that the eater is the Highest Self alone. Here ends the section entitled 'The eater' (2). Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled 'The cave'. (Sūtras 11-12) SŪTRA 11 "THE SOULS ENTERED INTO THE CAVE (ARE THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL AND THE SUPREME SOUL), BECAUSE THAT IS SEEN." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: 'There are two, drinking of righteousness in the world of good deeds, entered into the cave' (Kaṭha 3.1 1), the two souls, entered into the cave, should be known to be two sentient beings, viz. the individual soul and the Supreme Soul Why? 2 "Be- cause that is seen", i e. because it is found that this section desig- nates the entering of these two alone,—of the Supreme Soul in the passage: 'Him, who is difficult to see, who has entered into the hidden, who is hidden in the cave' (Kaṭha 2.12 2); and of the individual soul in the passage: 'She, who arises with the vital-breath, who is Aditi, who is made of the deities, who, entering into the cave, abides therein, who was manifested through the elements' (Kaṭha 4.7 3). Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out above that the Supreme Soul, the topic of discussion and the object to be meditated on, is the eater of the movable and the immovable, and that He is difficult to be known, as declared by the text: 'Who thus knows' (Kaṭha 2.25). Now, by 1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B 2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. 3 R, B

[SŪ. 1. 2. 11. 108 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 3.] teaching the following attributes of the Lord—viz. 'being easily attainable', 'being easily knowable' and the rest—which result from His close association (with the individual soul¹),—to one who desires for salvation, who desires to attain His nature, who desires to know Him, and who is submerged in the pit of mundane existence consisting of the movable and the immovable, the author is showing that the text: 'Righteousness' (Kaṭha 3. 1) and so on refers to the Lord. Immediately after the above-quoted text, we find the following in the Kaṭha-vallī: 'There are two, drinking of righteousness in the world of good deeds, entered into the cave, in the highest upper region. Those who know Brahman speak of them as "light" and "shade", as well as those who maintain the five sacred fires,² and those too who thrice kindle the Nāciketas fire'³ (Kaṭha 3.1). Here a doubt arises as to whether here buddhi and the individual soul are designated as entered into the cave, or the individual soul and the Supreme Soul? What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: Buddhi and the individual soul,—because in accordance with the statement: 'Entered into the cave' (Kaṭha 3.1), entering into a cave is impossible on the part of the Supreme Soul who is all-pervasive; because it is impossible for the Supreme Being who has all His desires fulfilled to be the enjoyer of the fruits of works, as stated in the passage: 'Drinking of righteousness' (Kaṭha 3. 1); because any connection with the 'world of good deeds',—i.e. with the world where one enjoys the fruits of the works done by one's self, viz. the body generated by works,—is impossible on His part, and, finally, because a question is found, seeking to know the individual soul as different from buddhi, viz. '"There is this doubt when a man is dead, some saying, 'He is', others, 'He is not'. This I should know, as taught by you"' (Kaṭha 1. 20⁴). Hence, these two alone (viz. buddhi and individual soul) are established by this text,— ¹ I.e. the Lord abides with the individual soul in the same place, viz. the heart, and as such is easily knowable and attainable by it. ² Viz. Anvāhārya-pacana or Dakṣiṇa, Gārhapatya, Āhavanīya, Sabhya, and Āvasathya. M.W., p. 577, Col. 3. ³ Vide M.W., p. 458, Col. 2. ⁴ The sense is: Naciketā wants to know here what happens to the soul after death, i.e. he wants to know the self as distinct from the body, buddhi and so on. Hence, in reply, Yama must speak of the individual soul and buddhi, and as such the passage in question must deal with these two alone.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 11. ADH. 3] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 109 We reply: The souls entered into the cave, viz. the heart, are two sentient beings alone. If it be objected: The entering of the individual soul stands to reason, since it is atomic; but entering into a cave is not appropriate on the part of the Supreme Soul who is all-pervasive, and hence the above objection remains in force,—(we reply:) No. "Because that is seen." That is, because in this very Upaniṣad, the text: 'The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, abides within the soul, the Lord of the past and the future' (Kaṭha 4.12) enjoins the Supreme Soul to be looked upon as abiding within the caves (i.e. hearts) of His sincere devotees in accordance with their wishes, though He Himself is all-pervading; because this is found in the texts: 'Hidden in the cave, dwelling in the abyss' (Kaṭha 2.12), 'He who knows him, hidden in the cave' (Tait. 2.1.1); and, lastly, because in the text: 'She, who arises with the vital-breath, who is Aditi, who is made of the deities, who, entering into the cave abides therein, who was manifested through the elements' (Kaṭha 4.7), the individual soul is designated as entering into the cave. Moreover, in the text: 'Drinking of righteousness' (Kaṭha 3.1), one being ascertained to be a sentient being as the enjoyer of the fruits of works, the other too must be understood to be a sentient being alone, because we find that in ordinary life whenever a number is mentioned, beings of the same class are meant. When, e.g. it is said 'Look out for a second for this cow', people look out for a cow only, and not for a horse or an ass. This is established in the Mahā-bhāṣya. To the objection, viz. that a question is found which seeks to know the individual soul as different from buddhi,—(we reply:) the reply to this question is something else, and not this text. It cannot be said also that there is anything inconsistent in the 'drinking of righteousness' (Kaṭha 3.1), since the statement: 'Drinking of righteousness' (Kaṭha 3.1) is justifiable, just like the statement: 'Men with umbrellas are going'; ¹ since it is possible to say that while the individual soul drinks, the other (viz. the Lord) causes it to drink, 1 That is, referring to a crowd of hurrying people, we often say: 'Men with umbrellas are going', though really only some of them are carrying umbrellas, and not all. Similarly, here too, when it is said: 'The two drinking', etc. what is really meant is that only one (viz. the individual soul) is drinking, and not the other (viz. Brahman).

[SŪ. 1. 2. 12. 110 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.] and is as such the causative agent; ¹ and since it is well-known every- where that the Supreme Lord first experiences the fruits of the works which are performed by one who is whole-heartedly devoted to Him, and are entrusted to Him. Hereby, it is explained also how the Supreme Being can abide in a body generated by works. The sense is that just as 'shade' can be removed by 'light' and not 'light' by 'shade', so the 'light' and the 'shade' (in the above text) are none but Brahman and the individual soul, the independent and the dependent. Śaṃkara and Bhāskara Interpretation of the phrase 'tad-darśanāt' different, viz.: 'Because it is seen (that numerals denote beings of the same nature)'. ² SŪTRA 12 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIFICATION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The individual soul and the Supreme Being alone are understood here as entered into the cave, because in this section those two alone are specified as the object to be worshipped and the worshipper, as the object to be known and the knower, and so on, in the texts: 'By knowing the knower of what is born from Brahman,³ the deity to be worshipped, by revering (him), he goes to everlasting peace' (Kaṭha 1.17 ⁴), 'The bridge for sacrificers' (Kaṭha 3.2 ⁵) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha The individual soul and the Supreme Soul are to be understood as entered within the cave "also because of the specification" of those two alone. The sense is that in this treatise (viz. the Kaṭha- upaniṣad), the individual soul and the Supreme Soul alone are specified as that which approaches and the goal approached, as the thinker ¹ That is, Brahman is not really an agent or drinker here, but only instigates the other to drink. He is said to be drinking in this sense alone. ² Ś.B. 1.2.12, p. 272, Bh.B. 1.2.12, p. 41. ³ Correct quotation: 'Brahmaja-jña'. Vide C.S.S. ed., p. 8. 'Brahmaja- jña' may be interpreted also as 'Brahmajaś cāsau jñaśceti'. ⁴ R. ⁵ Op. cit.

[SŪ. 1. 2 13. ADH. 4 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 111 and the object thought, in the passages: 'Know the soul to be the charioteer, and the body the chariot' (Kaṭha 3.3), 'He reaches the end of the road, that supreme place of Viṣṇu' (Kaṭha 3.9), 'Him, who is difficult to be seen, who has entered into the hidden, who is hidden in a cave, who dwells in the abyss, ancient,—by thinking him God, through the study of the Yoga of what relates to the self, the wise man discards joy and sorrow' (Kaṭha 2.12) and so on Hence, it is established that the individual soul and the Supreme Soul alone are to be understood here as entered into the cave, and not buddhi and the individual soul Here ends the section entitled 'The cave' (3). Adhikarana 4. The section entitled 'What is within'. (Sūtras 13-18) SŪTRA 13 "THAT WHICH IS WITHIN (THE EYE IS BRAHMAN), ON ACCOUNT OF FITTING IN." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the passage: 'That person who is seen within the eye' (Chānd. 4.15.1 ¹), the Person "within" the eye is the Highest Person alone, and not any one else. Why? Because the attributes of 'being the self', 'being fearless', 'being the uniter of all lovely things', and so on,—mentioned in the passages: '"He is the self", said he, "This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman"' (Chānd 4.15.1²), 'They call it the "uniter of lovely things"' (Chānd. 4.15.2),—"fit in" in the case of the Highest Person alone. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, by showing that the text: 'That Person who is seen within the eye' (Chānd. 4.15.1) and so on refers to Brahman, the author romoves the doubt, viz.:—In the previous passage (viz. Kaṭha 3.1), the individual soul and the Supreme Soul may be understood, since the dual number is found used. But here, since the singular number ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Ś, R, Bh.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 13. 112 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.] is used, who (viz. the individual soul or the Supreme Soul) is to be understood ? We read under the Upakośala-vidyā ¹ in the Chāndogya:—" 'That Person who is seen within the eye, he is the soul", said he, "This is the immortal, the fearless, that is Brahman Hence, even if they pour clarified butter or water on it, it goes away to both sides' " (Chānd. 4 15 1) and so on Here, a doubt arises as to whether the person, taught as abiding within the eye, is the reflected self (i e. the image of a person reflected on the eye of another), or the individual soul, or the presiding deity of the sense-organ (viz the eye), or the Supreme Soul The prima facie view is as follows· In accordance with the statement 'is seen', he may be the reflected self, because the reflected self alone is well-known to be perceivable, while the individual soul and the rest are not perceivable If it be said that here 'seeing' means scriptural insight (and not actual, physical perceiving),—then the individual soul may be that which is 'within' the eye, since it, as the perceiver of colour and the rest, is in proximity to the eye.¹ Or, the presiding deity of the eye is denoted by the word 'person' in accordance with the scriptural passage: 'Through his rays he is stationed herein' (Bṛh. 5 5 2), and because the all-pervasive Being cannot possibly abide within the eye With regard to it, we reply· "That which is within", i e. the being who is within the eye, is the Supreme Soul alone. Why? "On account of fitting in", i e. because the attributes of 'being the self', 'fearlessness', and so on, "fit in" in the case of the Supreme Soul alone Although 'being the Self' and the rest are not incompatible with the real nature of the individual soul, yet when the term 'Brah- man' (in the text) can be understood in its primary sense, it is not proper to take it as implying some other sense. Moreover, 'fearless- ness', too, is not appropriate in the case of any one, other than Brahman, as known also from the text. 'Through fear of Him the wind blows, through fear of Him the sun rises, through fear of Him fire and Indra, and death as fifth, speed along' (Tait. 2.8.1); and further because the attributes of 'being the uniter of all lovely things' and the ¹ I.e. it is the soul which really perceives colour, etc. and not the eye itself, but the soul perceives them through the eye, and is as such in close proximity to the eye. Hence, as the soul is situated very near to the eye, it is called the person within the eye.

[sū. 1. 2. 14. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 113 rest, mentioned in the sacred text: ‘They call this “the uniter of all lovely things” ¹, because all lovely things come together to him’ (Chānd 4 15.2), ‘He is also “the leader to all blessing” ² because he leads to all blessings’ (Chānd. 4.15.3), ‘He also is “the leader to light ”³, because he shines in all the worlds’ (Chānd. 4.15.4), “fit in” in the case of the Supreme Soul alone. ‘Saṃyadvāma’ implies one from whom the ‘vāmas’, i.e. the fruits of karmas ‘come together’, i.e. one who is the cause of the rise of all fruits of karmas. This very thing is stated in the above text thus:—‘Because’, i.e. since, ‘the lovely things’ ‘come together’, i.e. arise from ‘this’, i.e. the Person within the eye, the cause. In the text ‘He is also the ‘vāmanī’, the ‘vāmanī’ implies one who ‘leads’, i.e causes people, to attain the ‘vāmas’ or auspicious objects. This very thing is stated in the passage. ‘Because he leads to all blessings’. In the text ‘He also is the bhāmanī’, the ‘bhāmanī’ implies one who leads to the ‘bhāmas’, i.e. one who manifests all objects. This very thing is stated in the text ‘Because he shines in all the worlds’,—this is the meaning of the text. SŪTRA 14 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF PLACE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “And on account of the designation of the place” of the Supreme Soul, in the text: ‘He who abiding within the sun’ (Bṛh. 3.7.18 ⁴), the Person within the sun is none but He. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. How can an all-pervading being be designated as occupying a small locality, the reverend author of the aphorisms replies here: The Person within the eye can be the Supreme Soul alone. Why? “On account of the designation of place”, i.e. because of the designa- tion of the abode of the Lord, the Highest Person alone, the cause of all causes, the inner soul of all, and the object to be meditated by all, because one who occupies one part cannot properly dwell in another. ¹ Saṃyadvāma. ² Vāmanī. ³ Bhāmanī. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. 8

114 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 2. 15 ADH 4.] If it be objected: How can an all-pervading being abide in a small locality,—(we reply) No inconsistency whatsoever is involved here Just as fire, though all-pervading, becomes visible in clouds and the rest in the form of lightning and so on through its own greatness, so the Lord, though all-pervading, becomes visible in the eye and the rest through His own special powers, for the sake of fulfilling the desire of His devotees. The words “and so on” mean:— On account of the designation of the form of the Supreme Soul, suitable to Him, and fit for abiding in a place,¹ celebrated in the following passages:—‘Now, this Golden Person who is seen within the sun, has a golden beard, golden hair’ (Chānd. 1 6 6), ‘He sees the Person, lying in the city, who is higher than the highest aggregate of souls’ (Praśna 5 5) “The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, smokeless like light’ (Katha 4.13) and so on; i.e. on account of the designation of the form of the Lord by the expression ‘The Person who is seen’ ² (Chānd. 4 15.1) By the term “and” His power of manifesting Himself in forms, as desired, in the eye, in the heart and the like, is indicated. SŪTRA 15 “ON ACCOUNT ALSO OF THE MENTION ONLY OF WHAT IS CHARAC- TERIZED BY PLEASURE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha That which is within the eye is the Supreme Being alone, “on account also of the mention of what is characterized by pleasure” in the passage: ‘Pleasure is Brahman, the ether is Brahman’ (Chānd. 4.10.4 ³). Vedānta-kaustubha The Person within the eye is the Highest Person alone, the cause of the world, and not any one else. Why? “On account also of the mention of what is characterized by pleasure.” That is, in the ¹ I.e. unless the Lord has a form, He cannot abide anywhere. Hence, the body of the Lord enables Him to abide in the eye and so on. ² I.e. that Person within the sun has a form is evident from the word ‘seen’, for a bodiless being cannot be seen. ³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 16. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 115 introductory text · 'The vital-breath, is Brahman, pleasure is Brahman, the ether is Brahman' (Chānd. 4 10.4), pleasure that is Brahman, i.e Brahman characterized by pleasure, is mentioned, and that alone is referred to here SŪTRA 16 “ALSO FOR THAT VERY REASON, THAT IS BRAHMAN.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “That”, i.e. pleasure, is “Brahman”, i.e. Brahman alone is charac- terized by pleasure. Why? On account also of the text, establishing their mutual specification ¹, viz. ‘What, verily, is pleasure, that is the ether ; what is the ether, that is pleasure’ (Chānd 4.10.5 ²) Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz The word ‘pleasure’ conventionally denotes wordly pleasure, so how can it be said that Brahman is characterized by pleasure?—the reverend teacher of the Veda replies here: “That is Brahman.” This means that in that introductory text, Brahman alone, characterized by pleasure, is mentioned and not worldly pleasure. Why? “Also for that very reason,” i e. on account also of the text intimating their mutual specification, viz. ‘What, verily, is pleasure that is the ether; what is the ether, that is pleasure’ (Chānd 4 10.5), for worldly pleasure cannot consistently refer to an all-pervading substance—denoted by the term ‘ether’—as non-different from itself. COMPARISON Śaṃkara, etc. This Sūtra is omitted by Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva. Rāmānuja Reading different, viz. ‘Ata-eva ca sa Brahma’. Interpretation too different, viz. ‘For that very reason (i.e because the ether is characterized by pleasure), that (viz. the ether) is Brahman’.³ ¹ I e ka (pleasure) qualifies kha (ether) and vice versa. ² R, ŚK. ³ Śrī B 1 2.6, pp 252-253, Part 1.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 17. 116 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.] Śrīkaṇṭha Reading different, viz. ‘Ata-eva sa Brahma’. Interpretation too different, viz. exactly like Rāmānuja’s ¹ SŪTRA 17 “ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF THE PATH OF ONE WHO HAS HEARD THE UPANIṢAD.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “The path”, called ‘the path of gods’, “of one who has heard the Upaniṣad” is celebrated in another scriptural text, viz. ‘Now those who seek the soul by austerity, chastity, faith and knowledge, win the sun by the northern path. That, verily, is the abode of the vital- breaths, that is immortal, that is fearless, that is the highest goal From that they do not return’ (Praśna 1.10 ²). “On account also of the mention” of that very “path” here in the text ‘They pass over to light’ (Chānd. 4.15.5 ³), the Person within the eye is none but the Highest Person.⁴ Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason, too, the person within the eye is the Supreme Soul,—so says the reverend author of the aphorisms That through which bondage is broken is Upaniṣad, the know- ledge of the Supreme Soul; or that which leads one to attain the Supreme Soul is Upaniṣad, the knowledge of the Supreme Soul. The treatise relating to that is also Upaniṣad. “Śrutopaniṣatka” is one by whom the Upaniṣad has been directly heard from a teacher, he is a knower of Brahman, the Mysterious. “The path” which, as cele- brated in another Scripture and in the Smṛtis, belongs to him, i.e. is his way to attaining Brahman who is established in the Upaniṣads,— that very path is mentioned here too as belonging to one who knows the person within the eye. For this reason too, i e. “on account ¹ ŚK. B. 1.2.16, p. 360, Part 4. ² Ś, R, Bh. ³ Ś, R, Bh, B. ⁴ That is, the worshipper of the person within the eye follows the same path followed by the worshipper of Brahman This proves that the person within the eye is Brahman.