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

[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.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 17. ADH. 4 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 117 of the mention of the path of one who has heard the Upaniṣad", the person within the sun is the Supreme Self,—this is the sense. Thus, the path, which is said to be followed by a knower,—so that he may attain Brahman,—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), as well as in the Smṛti passage, viz. ‘Fire, light, day, the bright fortnight, the six months of the sun’s northern progress,—through these do the knowers of Brahman go to Brahman on departing’ (Gītā 8.24),— that very path is said to belong to one who knows the person within the eye, in the following passage: ‘Now, whether they perform obsequies in the case of such a person, or not, (the dead) pass over to light, from light to the day, from the day to the waxing fortnight, from the waxing fortnight to the six months during which the sun moves northwards, from the months to the year, from the year to the sun, from the sun to the moon, from the moon to lightning. Then there is a non-human Person. He leads them to Brahman. This is the path of the gods, the path to Brahman Those who go by it do not return to this human whirlpool,—they return not’ (Chānd 4.15.5-6). Hence, the person within the sun is none but the Supreme Soul. The meaning of the text (viz Praśna 1.10) is as follows:— ‘Now’, i.e. after the fall of the body, they ‘win’, i.e. attain the sun, ‘by the northern path’, i.e. through the path beginning with light and so on. Then, through the moon and the rest, in the order to be designated hereafter,¹ they attain the nature of Brahman. By doing what? Through the three kinds of ‘austerity’, mentioned by the Lord,² or else through the ‘austerity’ which is the special duty of a Vāna- prastha ³ and a Saṃnyāsin,⁴ both being primarily given to austerity; 1 See below, p. 119. Vide also V.K. 4.3.5. 2 Vide Gītā 17.14–16, where three kinds of austerity (tapas) are spoken of, viz Sārīra, Vāṅ-maya and Mānasa. These, again, may be of three kinds, viz. sāttvika, rājasa and tāmasa. Vide 17.16–22. 3 A Brahmin in the third stage of life, who has passed through the stages of a student and house-holder and has abandoned his life and family for an ascetic life in the forest. 4 A Brahmin in the fourth stage of life, a religious mendicant, who has given up all earthly concerns.

118 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 2. 17. ADH 4.] 'through faith', i.e. through vidyā, which is a mental disposition given to the worship of the feet of the teacher, i e. through meditation, arising from the hearing and the thinking of the Vedānta, and men- tioned in the text 'The self should be meditated on' (Bṛh. 2.4.5; 4.5.6),—one should, seeking the self, meditate on it,—this is the grammatical construction By the phrase 'through chastity', the text shows the particular stage of life which is congenial to the hearing, the thinking and the rest of the Vedānta. By chastity and the like, not only the duties, incumbent on special stages of life, are to be understood. That those who are destitute of any devotion for Brah- man, but merely belong to one or other of the stages of life and are devoted to the duties, incumbent thereon, return once more and attain the world, is declared by the reverend Parāśara in a passage, which begins 'The Prājāpatya is for the Brāhmaṇas' and ends 'The Brāhma is declared in Smṛti to be for the Saṁnyāsins' That those who, among these, are devoted to the Supreme Brahman, attain His world, is mentioned in the passage: 'Those ascetics who are devoted to Brahman alone, who ever meditate on Brahman, to them belong that supreme place, which, verily, the wise see'. Hence, the Vāna-prastha and the rest should be understood as implying devotion to the Supreme Brahman, (and not as mere duties incum- bent on different stages of life). By 'chastity' is meant here the religious duties pursued by the Naiṣṭhikas ¹ who lead a life of chastity and are absolutely free from all desires for enjoyment, here or here- after The sense is that the search for Brahman should properly be made through such a permanent vow ² of 'chastity'. The sacred duty called 'chastity' is stated by the all-knowing 'Law of Salvation' ³ under the section called 'Vārsṇeya-adhyātma', thus: 'This unbroken chastity which is the form of Brahman is higher than all religious practices. By it, (people) reach the highest goal' (Mahā 12.7770 ⁴). Under the section treating of instruction, ¹ A Naiṣṭhika is a perpetual religious student, who observes the vow of chastity. M.W., p 570, Col. 1. ² I.e. 'Brahma-cārya' (=chastity) in the ordinary sense of the term means temporary chastity, which a student has to observe so long as he has not entered the stage of a house-holder But here the term means permanent chastity which a Naiṣṭhika, e.g. practises. ³ Mokṣa-dharma ⁴ P. 640, line 40, vol 3, Asiatic Society ed.

[sū. 1. 2. 17. ADH 4] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 119 it is said: 'Listen, O Father Yudhiṣṭhira, to the merits of chastity. He who leads a life of chastity from birth to death, and practises the "Great Vow", there is nothing, know, O King, that is unattainable by him Many millions of Vṛṣis dwell in the world of Brahman, those who are truthful, ever self-controlled, leading a life of chastity Chas- tity is a supreme duty, honoured in all stages of life, and if resorted to, chastity burns, O King, all sins', and so on. In accordance with the scriptural text, viz • 'Desiring which people practice chastity, that word I tell you in brief' (Katha 2.15), as well as in accordance with the statement by the Lord, viz • '“Desiring which people practise chastity, that word I will tell you in brief”' (Gītā 8.11), chastity alone is the chief means to the supreme region. The repetition of the means, to be mentioned hereafter in the aphorism • 'Repetition, more than once, because of teaching' (Br. Sū. 4.1.1), may also be resorted to by a Naisthika. The text 'This verily' (last portion of Praśna 1 10) and so on indicates Brahman, who is to be attained through the path which begins with light, and to be enquired into. (The meaning of the text---Chānd. 4.15.5-6---is as follows·) 'Now', i e. when he is dead, whether people perform proper funeral ceremonies or do not perform them, in either case, the wise, un- obstructed in their progress, and wishing to attain the nature of the Lord, attain the presiding deity of light, through that the day, after that, they successively attain, the presiding deities of fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of the sun, the year, the wind or the world of gods, the sun, the moon, lightning the worlds of the king of water (i.e. Varuṇa) and Indra, then the world of Prajāpati After that, breaking through the sphere of prakṛti, they attain the Virajā, the best of rivers and forming the boundary of the supreme place After having crossed that river and having entered the world of Viṣṇu,—called 'supreme void', 'supreme place', 'world of Brah- man' and so on, having the stated marks,¹ and unapproachable by those who are averse to the Lord,—they roam about, attaining the nature of Brahman,—this is the resulting meaning. This we shall expound in details in the fourth chapter.² 'This is the path of Gods', because it is characterized by having Gods as the conductors. It is the 'path to Brahman', because it is the way to Brahman, the object

¹ Vide V.K. 1.1.1. ² Vide V.K. 4.3.5.

[SŪ. 1. 2 18. 120 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.] to be enquired into and the object to be attained. ‘Those who go by it’ ‘do not return’, i e. do not enter any more, through the influence of karmas, into ‘this human whirlpool’, i e. the material world, figuratively implied by the creation of mankind, and subject to re- currence (which is indicated by the term ‘whulpool’), —as declared by the Lord Himself in the passage: ‘“The worlds, beginning from the world of Brahma, come and go, O Arjuna. But, on attaining me, O son of Kuntī, there is no rebirth”’ (Gītā 8 16). The difference of the world of Brahman from the sphere of matter is stated in the Mokṣa-dharma under the dialogue between Jaigiṣa and Vyāsita in the passage which begins: ‘“A man of what nature, of what conduct, of what learning, of what valour does attain the place of Brahman, which is higher than prakṛti, and eternal”?’, and ends ‘“He attains the place of Brahman which is higher than prakṛti, and eternal”’ (Mahā. 12.9968-9969 ¹). SŪTRA 18 “ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ABIDING, AS WELL AS ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOSSIBILITY, NOT THE OTHER.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha That which is within the eye cannot be any one “other” than the Highest Self. Why? Because any one other than Him does not regularly abide therein; and because immortality and the rest are not possible on its part. Vedānta-kaustubha “The other”, i e. the reflected self, or the individual soul, or the presiding deity of the eye, in short, any one other than the Supreme Soul,—is not the Person within the eye. Why? “On account of non-abiding”, i.e. because any one other than the Supreme Soul, does not regularly abide in the eye, since the presence of the reflected soul in the eye depends on the nearness of another person to the eye, (and hence when the person moves away, there is no reflection any longer); since the individual soul is connected with all the sense-organs (and cannot, therefore, abide within the eye only); and since the ¹ P 716, lines 22-23, vol. 3. For full quotation see under V.K. 1 3.13.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 19. ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 121 presiding deity is declared to abide in the eye through the rays, (and hence does not himself abide within the eyes ¹); and finally, because immortality, fearlessness, ‘being the uniter of lovely things’ and the rest are not possible on the part of any one other than Him. Hence, it is established that the Highest Soul alone is to be worshipped as the person within the eye. Here ends the section entitled ‘That which is within’ (4). COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different, viz he takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the Person, of the size of a thumb merely, (Mahānār. 16 3) is the Lord or someone else. Thus: ‘(The person, of the size of a thumb, is the Lord), because of the instability (i.e. unsuitableness), as well as because of the impossibility (of the attributes of “having the entire world as the body”, “being the devourer of the entire world”, and so on, on the part of any one else)’.² Adhikaraṇa 5. The section entitled ‘The inner controller’. (Sūtras 19–21) SŪTRA 19 “THE INNER CONTROLLER IN THE PRESIDING DEITIES AND THE REST, AND IN THE WORLDS AND THE REST (IS THE HIGHEST SELF), ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF HIS QUALITIES.” ³ Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The inner controller,—mentioned repeatedly in all the versions in reference to the presiding deities of the earth and the rest, in the passage which begins ‘He who, abiding within the earth’, and

¹ Vide Śrī. B. 1.1.18, p. 354, Part 1. ² ŚK B. 1.1.18, pp. 364–66, Part 4. ³ Cf. the different readings:—K.S.S. ed. and Brindaban ed. read ‘adhi- devādi’. C S.S ed. reads ‘adhidaivādhi’

[SŪ. 1. 2. 19 122 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] continues 'He is your soul, the inner controller' (Bṛh 3.7 3¹),— is the Highest Self alone Why ? “On account of the designation of His qualities” here, viz. 'being the controller of all' and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, the author points out that just as the text about the Person within the eye refers to Brahman, so the text about the inner controller, too, refers to Brahman, and to none else The inner controller, i.e. the controller who abides within, who is repeatedly mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, under the section treating of the inner controller, in all the versions in reference to the presiding deities of the earth, the sky, the ether and the rest, in the passage which beginning : 'Who controls from within this world and the other world and all beings' (Bṛh. 3 7.1), continues : 'He who, dwelling within the earth, is other than the earth, whom the earth does not know, of whom the earth is the body, who controls the earth within—He is your soul, the inner controller, immortal ²' (Bṛh. 3.7.3), and so on, and who is taught, after that,—in the text which begins 'He who abiding in all the worlds' (Śat. Br. 14.6.7.17 ³) and ends 'He who abiding within the soul' (Śat. Br. 14.6.7.30 ⁴),—by a section, which enjoins him with in reference to the worlds, the Vedas, the sacrifices and the soul ⁵,—is such an inner controller, a deity, or an individual soul, or the Highest Self, the one topic of all the Vedas ? What is reasonable here ? He may be a presiding deity, or an indivi- dual soul, because these two abide everywhere. With regard to this, we reply: The inner controller mentioned in all the versions in reference to the presiding deities of the earth, fire, sky, ether, air, sun and the rest, can be the Highest Self alone. ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² This is repeated at the end of each verse from Bṛh 3 7.3–3.7.23. ³ P 1074, line 5 ⁴ Op. cit., line 18. ⁵ The Kāṇva branch designates a being abiding within the earth and the rest (vide Bṛh. 3.7 3–23). The Mādhyandina branch, after designating a being abiding within the earth and so on (vide Śat. Br. 14 6.7.7-16), reads three additional texts, viz 'He who dwells in all the worlds', 'He who dwells in all the Vedas' and 'He who dwells in all the sacrifices,' and in place of 'He who dwells in intelligence' (Bṛh. 3.7 22) a text 'He who dwells in the soul' (Vide Śat Br 14.6 7.17–30). Note that Nimbārka makes no reference to this Mādhyandina addition in his commentary, although it is clearly indicated in the sūtra by the word 'lokādiṣu'.

[sū. 1. 2. 19. ADH 5 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 123 Wherefore? “On account of the designation of His qualities”, i.e. on account of the designation here of the peculiar qualities of the Highest Self, viz. ‘being the governor of all worlds, Vedas, sacrifices, beings, vital-breaths, soul and the rest’, ‘being the inner controller of all’, ‘being immortal’ and so on. Hence a deity cannot be understood, because a deity, too, is but an individual soul and the stated qualities are not appropriate on his part, and because in that case, the statement that the inner controller is unknowable by the earth-god, viz. ‘Whom the earth does not know’ (Bṛh. 3.7.3), becomes inconsistent. The individual soul, too, is not the inner controller, for the stated qualities are not appropriate on its part as well; and because in the passage: ‘He is your soul, the inner controller’ (Bṛh. 3 7 3, etc.), it is declared to be different from the inner controller by the use of the genetive case (= ‘your’), designating difference. COMPARISON Śaṃkara This is sūtra 18 in Śaṃkara-bhāṣya. Reading different, viz. ‘Antaryāmyadhidaivādiṣu . . . . ’ ¹, i.e. omits ‘lokādiṣu’. Rāmānuja Reading like the Chowkhamba edition.² Interpretation different, viz. exactly like Śrīnivāsa’s. Nimbārka reads ‘lokādiṣu’ in the sūtra, like Rāmānuja, but gives no meaning of the word ‘lokādiṣu’. Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 18 in his commentary. Reading like the Chow- khamba edition.³ Baladeva This is sūtra 18 in his commentary. Reading different, viz. like Śaṃkara’s.⁴ 1 Ś B. 1.2.18, p. 282. 2 Śrī B. 1 2.19, p 257, vol 1. 3 Bh. B. 1.2 18, p. 43. ŚK B. 1.2.19, p. 368, Part 4 4 G B. 1 2 18 (p. 128, Chap. 1).

[sū. 1. 2. 20. 124 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.] SŪTRA 20 "AND (THE INNER CONTROLLER IS) NOT THAT WHICH IS DESIGNATED IN THE SMṚTI, ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF QUALITIES NOT BELONGING TO IT" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And, pradhāna is not denoted by the term "inner controller", "on account of the mention" of the qualities of a sentient being, viz. 'being the controller of all', 'being the seer of all' and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha Although pradhāna has already been set aside under the apho- rism 'Because (he) sees, not, it is non-scriptural' (Br. Sū. 1.1 5), yet it is being set aside once more apprehending the possibility of the attributes of invisibility the rest (belonging to the inner controller alone) on its part.¹ "That which is designated in the Smṛti", i.e. pradhāna established by the Sāṁkhya Smṛti, is not denoted by the term "inner controller". Why? "On account of the mention of qualities not belonging to it",—"the qualities not belonging to it" mean the qualities which belong to a sentient being,—"on account of the mention", i.e. declara- tion, of such qualities, in the concluding text: 'He is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unknown knower' (Bṛh. 3.7.23). On account of the designation of the qualities of a sentient being, viz. 'being the soul of all', 'being the governor of all' and so on, pradhāna cannot be accepted here COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Reading different, viz add 'śārīraśca', and extends the same argument to the case of the individual soul as well.² ¹ That is, pradhāna is invisible, and the inner controller too is said to be invisible, etc. (Bṛh. 3.7.23). Hence it might be thought that pradhāna is the inner controller. This is being refuted here. ² Śrī B. 1.2.20, p 259, Part 1 ŚK. B 1.2.20, p. 372, Part 4.

[sū. 1. 2. 21. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 125 SŪTRA 21 “AND THE EMBODIED ONE (IS NOT THE INNER CONTROLLER), BECAUSE BOTH ALSO DEPICT IT AS DIFFERENT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “And” the individual soul is not the inner controller, because “both” the Kaṇvas, ‘as well as’ the Mādhyandinas depict “it” “as different” from the inner controller, respectively in the passages. ‘He who abiding in intelligence’ (Bṛh. 3 7 22 ¹). ‘He who abiding in the soul’ (Śat. Br 14 6.7.30 ²) Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection: Let then the individual soul, and not pradhāna be denoted by the term “inner controller”, since the qualities of being a seer and the rest are appropriate on the soul’s part—the author replies here: The word ‘not’ is to be supplied here from the preceding aphorism. And the “embodied one”, i.e. the soul which has entered into a body, its abode for enjoying the fruits of its own actions, is not denoted by the term “inner controller”, on account of the mention of qualities not belonging to it, viz. ‘being the soul of all’, ‘being the governor of all’, ‘being the seer of all’ and so on; ‘for both’ the Kaṇvas, ‘as well as’ the Mādhyandinas “depict” ‘this’, i.e. the embodied one, “as different” from the inner controller, since the embodied self is an abode like the earth and the rest, and is an object to be governed.³ The Kaṇvas read: ‘He who abiding within intelligence’ (Bṛh. 3.7.22), the Mādhyandinas read: ‘Whom the soul does not know, of whom the soul is the body, who controls the soul from within—He is your soul, the inner controller, immortal’ (Śat. Br. 14.5.7.30). There being the denial of any other seer in the passage: ‘There is no seer other than Him’ (Bṛh. 3.7.23), the seer of everything is the Highest Person alone, the sense being that none other than the Lord is the seer of everything. The individual soul, known from the text: ‘The person alone is a seer, a hearer’, is the seer of only a few things in

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. B ² P. 1074, line 18. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. B ³ I.e. the individual soul is the abode, while the inner controller is one who abides therein, just as He abides within the earth and the rest. Again, the individual soul is the object governed, the inner controller, the governor. Hence the two are different.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 21. 126 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] contrast to Brahman, (the seer of everything),—such is the distinction (between Brahman, and the soul, though both are seers) Here too, the difference of nature between the individual soul and Brahman is established by Scripture and aphorism This difference should not be understood in the sense the logicians understand it to exist between the individual soul and the Lord, (i e. as absolute difference), but (it implies that the individual soul) is a part of Brahman who is One alone, as mentioned in the text: 'Brahman,¹ one, without a second' (Chānd. 6.2.1), without an equal or a superior, the governor, possessed of infinite powers and an ocean of auspicious qualities. Although here in the introductory chapter, the individual soul, possessed of the stated marks, is said to be different from the Lord, because of its own peculiar qualities, mentioned in the Veda, viz 'being an object to be controlled' and so on,—yet just as an attribute is different from its substratum (yet non-different from it), so it is non-different from its own controller, as it is incapable of having an independent existence or activity, and as it does not contradict the attributes, such as, 'being one', 'being without a second' and so on, belonging to the Whole of which it is a part ² Thus, the qualities of 'being subject to bondage and release', 'having little knowledge' and the rest, pertain to the part, (viz. the individual soul); while the qualities of 'being ever-free', 'being omniscient', 'being unenveloped (by nescience)', 'being the object to be approached by the freed' and the rest, are peculiar to Brahman. Hence, no fault of an intermixture of qualities arises here. Similarly, 'materiality', 'mutability' and the like are the peculiar qualities of the non-sentient, a power of Brahman; while 'omnipotence', 'omniscience' and the rest, are peculiar to Brahman, the possessor of the power. Although prakṛti is different from Brahman as a power, yet it is non-different from Brahman, as a power has no separate activity, etc. Thus, a relation of difference-non-difference between the three realities is the view of the followers of the Upaniṣads (i.e. Vedāntins) Here ends the section entitled 'The inner controller' (5). 1 The word 'Brahman' not included in the original text. 2 I e if the individual soul were different from Brahman, then it would have been a second principle besides Brahman and would have thereby contra- dicted His Oneness. But as it does not do so, it must be non-different from Him

[sū. 1. 2. 22. ADH. 6.]    VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA    127 COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Reading different, viz. omits 'śārīraśca' in the beginning, interpretation same.¹ Thus, according to Nimbārka, Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Bala- deva:— 'Na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt ' (One sūtra ) 'Śārīraścobhaye'pi hi bhedenainam adhīyate ' (One sūtra.) According to Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha :— 'Na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt śārīraś ca.' (One sūtra ) 'Ubhaye'pi hi bhedenainam adhīyate.' (One sūtra ) Adhikaraṇa 6 · The section entitled ‘ I n v i s i b i - l i t y ’ (Sūtras 22–24) SŪTRA 22 “ THAT WHICH POSSESSES THE QUALITIES OF INVISIBILITY AND SO ON (IS BRAHMAN), ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF (HIS) QUALITIES.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha That which is mentioned by the Ātharvaṇikas in the text: 'Invisible' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.6 ²) and so on, as 'possessed of the qualities of invisibility and the rest', is the Highest Self alone. Why? “On account of the mention” of His “qualities” in the passage 'He who is omniscient' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9 ³), etc. Vedānta-kaustubha In the preceding section, pradhāna was set aside on the ground of qualities like 'being a seer' and the like which belong to a sentient being only. Now, by showing that the text: 'Now, the higher is that whereby that Imperishable' (Muṇḍ 1.1.5), and so on refers to Brahman, the author is disposing of the objection, viz Let pradhāna ¹ Śrī. B. 1.2.22, p. 260, Part I. ŚK. B 1.2 22, p. 374, Part 1. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.        ³ Op. cit.

[SŪ 1. 2. 22. 128 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6 ] be understood here (in the above text), owing to the absence of that (i.e. owing to the fact that the above text contains no reference to the qualities of a sentient being). In the Ātharvaṇa, it is said: 'There are two knowledges to be known' (Muṇḍ. 1 1 4). Among these, the knowledge of works, viz. the Ṛg-veda and the rest, is the lower.¹ With a view to teaching the higher, viz the knowledge of Brahman, in contrast to it, it is said: 'Now, the higher is that whereby the Imperishable is appre- hended, that which is invisible, incapable of being grasped, without family, without caste, without eye, without ear, it is without hands and feet, eternal, all-pervasive, omnipresent, excessively subtle, it is unchangeable, which the wise perceive as the source of beings' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.5-6), 'Without the vital-breath, without mind, pure, higher than the high Imperishable' (Muṇḍ. 2 1.12) and so on. Here a doubt arises as to whether here the Imperishable, the source of beings and possessed of the qualities of invisibility and the rest, is pradhāna, or the individual soul, or the Highest Self. The prima facie view is as follows :—As invisibility and such other qualities are possible on the part of pradhāna and the individual soul; as pradhāna is established to be the source of beings; and as the individual soul too, the cause of the body and the rest through its own works, can be so,—let one of these two be the Imperishable. With regard to this, we reply: The Imperishable, the source of beings and possessed of the qualities of invisibility and the rest, is the Highest Self alone. Why? "On account of the mention of qualities", i.e. because in the passage: 'He who is all-knowing, omniscient, whose penance consists of knowledge, from Him alone Brahman, name and form, and food arise' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9), the permanent attributes of the Highest Self, viz. omniscience, etc. are stated, with a view to laying down the attributes of the Imperishable, the source of beings. If it be objected: This view is not reasonable. Having referred to the Imperishable in the passage: 'The Imperishable is apprehended' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.5), then again having designated the Imperishable as a limit in the passage: 'Higher than the high Imperishable' (Muṇḍ. 2 1.2), the text next goes on to designate the meaning of the word 'higher' as the Highest Self, in the passage: 'He who is all-knowing' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9). If here the Highest Self be understood by the word ¹ Vide Muṇḍ. 1.1.5.

[sū. 1. 2 22. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 129

‘Imperishable’ in the first passage, then how can the text: ‘Higher than the Imperishable, the Light’ (Muṇḍ 2.1.2) be possible, it being impossible for one to be higher than one’s own self, and there being no reality higher than Brahman, the Imperishable, the cause of the world and the topic of discussion, as evident from the declaration by the Lord Himself, viz. ‘“There is nothing else, higher than me, O Dhanañjaya” ’ (Gītā 7.7), as well as from the scriptural text: ‘There is nothing higher than the Person’ (Kaṭha 3.11)² Hence, let either pradhāna or the individual soul be the meaning of the word ‘Imperish- able’, mentioned first, (Muṇḍ. 1.1.5), and let the Highest Self, higher than that high Imperishable, be omniscient,— (We reply.) Not so, because the word ‘Imperishable’, mentioned for the second time, (Muṇḍ. 2 1 5) does not refer to the Highest Self Thus, from the knowledge, called ‘higher’,—mentioned in the passage· ‘The higher is that whereby that Imperishable is apprehended’ (Muṇḍ. 1 1.5),—it is gathered that the Imperishable is the Highest Brahman alone, since no other knowledge, except that of Brahman, can be high. Thus, having begun with the Highest Self, denoted by the word ‘Imperishable’ and celebrated in the texts · ‘He teaches in truth that knowledge of Brahman whereby one knows the Imperish- able, the Person, the True’ (Muṇḍ. 1.2.13), ‘As the hairs and the body-hairs arise from a living person, so from the Imperishable arises this Universe’ (Muṇḍ. 1 1 7), ‘As from a well-lit fire thousands of sparks of a similar form emit forth, so do, my dear, manifold existences from the Imperishable’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.1) and so on, and with the Imper- ishable, possessed of the attributes of invisibility and the rest, in the passage: ‘Now, the higher is that whereby that Imperishable is known’ (Muṇḍ. 1 1 5), Scripture, with a view to demonstrating His qualities and nature, designates Him once more as ‘higher’ than the ‘Imperish- able’, i.e than the individual soul which is His own part; as well as than the ‘high’, i e. pradhāna which His own power,—i.e. designates Him as their source and controller. Or, else, the ‘Imperishable’ is that which pervades the mass of its own modifications; ‘higher’ than that imperishable is pradhāna which is superior to its own modifica- tions; and ‘higher’ than this pradhāna is the Highest Self. Or, else, the Supreme Person is ‘higher’ than the Person within the aggregate (or Hiraṇyagarbha) who is higher than the Imperishable, viz. pradhāna, —this is the sense

[SŪ 1. 2 23. 130 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 6 | SŪTRA 23 "ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF ATTRIBUTES AND DIFFERENCE, NOT THE TWO OTHERS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Pradhāna and the individual soul are not denoted by the words 'Imperishable, the source of beings', "on account of the designation of attributes and difference". The designation of attributes is: 'All-pervading' (Muṇḍ. 1.1 6¹); and the designation of difference is: 'Higher than the high Imperishable' (Muṇḍ 2.1.2²). Vedānta-kaustubha "The two others", i.e. pradhāna and the soul, are not indicated as the Imperishable, the source of beings, but the Highest Self alone. Why? "Also on account of the designation of attributes and differ- ence." That is, the attribute 'All-pervading' (Muṇḍ. 1.1 6) in the text concerned excludes pradhāna and the individual soul from being the Imperishable, the source of beings,—on account of that; in the text: 'Higher than the high Imperishable' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.2), the difference of the Imperishable, the source of beings, from these two is designated,—on account of that as well. COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha They interpret this sūtra in the same way. The word 'viśeṣaṇa' interpreted differently, viz. 'Because this section distinguishes the Imperishable from pradhāna and the individual soul, since it aims at proving that through the knowledge of one there is the knowledge of all'.³ 1 Not quoted by others. 2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. 3 Śrī B. 1.2 23, p. 364, Part 1. ŚK. B. 1 2 23, p 383, Part 4.