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

[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.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 24. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 131 SŪTRA 24 "ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF (HIS) FORM " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "Also on account of the mention of the form" of the Highest Self in the passage: 'Fire is his head' (Muṇḍ. 2 1 4¹) and so on, not the other two. Vedānta-kaustubha The very same Being who is this Imperishable, the source of beings, the Cause of all causes and has the sentient and the non- sentient as His powers, abides also as the inner controller of the sentient and the non-sentient, the powers, and as His effects, and should be meditated on by one who desires salvation and is free from the faults of envy and malice,—with a view to showing this, the author here states that the universe is the form of the Lord The Imperishable, the source of beings, is the Highest Self alone, and not the other two. Why? "On account of the mention of (His) form." In the passage: 'Fire is his head, his eyes, the sun and the moon, the regions his ears, his utterances the Vedas, wind his breath, his heart the Universe, from his feet the earth (arises), truly, he is the Inner Soul of all beings' (Muṇḍ 2.1 4), the entire expanse of the universe, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, is designated as the form of the Highest Self alone, the inner Controller of all. If pradhāna and the individual soul be understood here, the designation of such a form is not possible. For this reason also, it is established that the Imperishable, who is the source of beings, is the Highest Person. Here ends the section entitled 'Invisibility' (6). COMPARISON Baladeva After this sūtra he reads a sūtra 'prakaraṇāt', not found in other commentaries. 1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

132 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ 1 2 25. ADH. 7 ] Adhikarana 7· The section entitled 'Vaiśvā- nara' (Sūtras 25-33) SŪTRA 25 " VAIŚVĀNARA (IS THE LORD), ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISTINCTIVE ATTRIBUTES OF THE COMMON TERM." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha 'Vaiśvānara' is the Highest Self alone, because that the word 'Vaiśvānara', though a common term, denoting (both) fire and Brahman, is to be understood as implying Brahman here, follows from the fact that we know its "distinctive attributes" through the designa- tion of its parts, such as the heaven as its head and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, it has been pointed out that the Lord is to be meditated on as the Soul of the movable and the immovable. Now, by pointing out that the Lord is to be meditated on, in the very same manner, as Vaiśvānara also, the author shows that the text: " 'Who is our soul ? What is Brahman " ? ' (Chānd. 5 11.1) refers to the Lord. In the Chāndogya, the following passage is found, beginning: " 'Who is our soul ? What is Brahman " ? ' (Chānd. 5 11 1), " 'You know now that Vaiśvānara Self, tell us about Him alone" ' (Chānd 5.11.6), and continuing: 'But he who meditates on the Vaiśvānara Self as of the measure of a span only, and as of an unlimited dimension, —he eats food in all the worlds, in all beings, in all selves. Verily, of this Vaiśvānara Self, the head, indeed, is the brightly shining (heaven), the eye the multiform (sun), the breath that which moves in various paths (i e. the wind), the body the extended (space), the bladder, indeed, wealth (i.e. water), the feet the earth indeed, the breast, indeed, the sacrificial altar, the hairs the sacrificial grass, the heart the Gārhapatya fire, the mind the Anvāhāryapacana fire, the mouth the Āhavanīya fire' (Chānd. 5.18.1-2). A doubt arises as to whether here Vaiśvānara is the gastric fire, or the elemental fire, or the presiding deity of fire, or the Highest Self. The prima facie view is as follows: The word 'Vaiśvānara' is a common term. Why ? Because it is applied to the gastric fire, as in the passage: 'This is the Vaiśvānara fire which is within this person, by means of which

[sū. 1. 2 25. ADH 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 133 this food that is eaten is digested. Its noise is that which one hears on covering the ears. When one is on the point of departing one does not hear this sound' (Bṛh 5 9 1); because it is applied also to the elemental fire, as in the passage: 'For the whole world, the gods made Agni Vaiśvānara a sign of the day' (Ṛg. V. 10.88.12 ¹); because it is applied to the fire-god too, as in the passage: 'May we be in the favour of Vaiśvānara, for verily, he is the king of the worlds, bliss, lustrous' (Ṛg V 1.98.1 ²); and because it is applied to the Highest Self, as in the passages 'He threw it in the self, indeed, in the heart, in Agni Vaiśvānara' (Tait. Br 3 1 8 7 ³). 'This Vaiśvā- nara arises as having all forms, as the vital-breath, as fire' (Praśna 1 7) With regard to it, we reply: Vaiśvānara is the Highest Person alone. Why? "On account of the distinctive attributes of the common word", i e because there are distinctive attributes for taking the common term 'Vaiśvānara',—applied, equally, to the gastric fire, the elemental fire, the fire-god and the Highest Self,—as denoting specifically the Highest Self alone. The sense is that the distinctive attributes by reason of which the Highest Person alone may be taken as the primary meaning of the word 'Vaiśvānara', are present here, as we know them from the text: 'Of this Vaiśvānara Self, the head indeed is the brightly shining (heaven)' (Chānd. 5 18 2) and so on. Hence, the word 'Vaiśvānara', though commonly applicable to all (the four), here denotes the Highest Self (alone), on account of such distinctive attributes. The gastric fire and the rest cannot possibly have limbs, like the heaven, and the rest down to the earth,—since they are not the soul of all, and since in this section, the common term is qualified by the special attributes of the Lord, such as, 'being the soul of all' and the rest, mentioned in the introductory text: " 'Who is our soul? What is Brahman?'" (Chānd. 5.11.1). 1 P. 347, lines 7-8 2 P 81, lines 3-4. 3 P. 265, lines 3-4, (vol 3). Correct quotation: 'Tad . . . hṛdaye agnau vaiśvānare prāsyat'.

[sū 1. 2. 26. 134 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7 ] SŪTRA 26 "THAT WHICH IS STATED BY SMṚTI MUST BE AN INDICATION, THUS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The form, stated in Smṛti as well, in the passage: 'Of whom, fire is the mouth, the heaven the head' (Mahā. 12 1656.6 ¹), "must" be a decisive factor in proving that Vaiśvānara is the Highest Self. Vedānta-kaustubha The word "thus" implies the reason. For this reason, too, Vaiśvānara is the Highest Self alone,—because "that which is stated by Smṛti must be an indication" of the fact that the word 'Vaiśvānara' denotes the Highest Self The phrase "That which is stated by Smṛti" means that the form, characterized by having the heaven for the head and the rest, denoted by the scriptural text: 'The head, indeed, is the brightly shining (heaven)' (Chānd 5 18 2) and so on, is mentioned also by a Smṛti which follows Scripture. That very thing must be "an indication", i.e. a decisive factor here,—this is the sense The Smṛti-passages are the following: 'Of whom fire is the mouth, the heaven the head, the sky the navel, the earth the feet, the sun the eye, the regions the ear,—obeisance to Him, the Soul of the world' (Mahā. 12 1656b–1657a ²), 'Of whom the heaven is the head, the wise declare, the sky, verily, the navel, the sun and the moon the eyes, the regions the ear, the earth the feet,—He is the inconceivable Soul, the maker of all beings' For this very reason, it has been said: 'Scripture and Smṛti are celebrated to be the two eyes of the wise. Deprived of one, one is said to be "one-eyed", deprived of both "blind"'. Or, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra:) the phrase: "That which is stated by Smṛti" means as follows: (The form) which is recognized in the following manner thus: What is celebrated in another scriptural text, viz. 'Fire is his head, the eyes the sun and the moon' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.4), and so on, as well as in the stated Smṛti-passages as the form of the Highest Self, that alone, is stated here (in Chānd. 5.18.2),—that form must be an indication, i.e a sign, that Vaiśvānara is the Highest Self. ¹ Ś. R ² P. 424, lines 2-3, vol. 3

[sū. 1. 2. 27. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 135 SŪTRA 27 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (VAIŚVĀNARA IS THE GASTRIC FIRE) ON ACCOUNT OF WORD AND THE REST, ON ACCOUNT OF ABIDING WITHIN, NOT (THE HIGHEST SELF). (WE REPLY.) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF TEACHING THE VISION (OF THE LORD) THUS, ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOSSIBILITY, AND (BECAUSE) THEY READ HIM ALSO AS A PERSON "1 Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that since the word 'Vaiśvānara' conventionally denotes the gastric fire, since there is the designation of a triad of fires, since it is mentioned as the abode of the offering to the vital- breaths, and since it is declared by Scripture to be abiding within, Vaiśvānara is not the Highest Self, but the gastric fire,— (We reply.) "No", "as" the Supreme Lord is "taught to be viewed" "thus", i.e. in the gastric fire; "for" if the Supreme Lord be not understood here, then having the heaven as the head and the rest 'is not possible', and it is declared by Scripture to be a person,—so Vaiśvānara is none but the Highest Self. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected: The Highest Self cannot be denoted by the word 'Vaiśvānara' here, but the gastric fire. Why? "On account of words and the rest," i.e. the reasons which begin with 'word' are 'reasons beginning with word',2—'on account of those'.3 Those reasons are as follows: First, the 'word' here is 'Vaiśvānara', and that conventionally denotes the gastric fire, and when a literal meaning is possible, it is improper to suppose any other meaning. Secondly, there is the word 'fire', i.e. there is a co-ordination between Vaiśvānara and the word 'fire' in the Vājasaneyaka-text, viz. 'This is the Vaiśvānara fire' (Śat. Br. 10 6.1.11 4). Thirdly, a triad of fires is designated in the text ; 'The heart is the Gārhapatya fire, the mind the Anvāhārya' (Chānd. 5.18.2) and so on. Fourthly, Vaiśvānara is declared by Scripture to be the support of the offering to the ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― 1 The C S S ed. omits 'iti cen na', p. 11. 2 Śabdādayaḥ. 3 This explains the compound 'śabdādibhyaḥ'. 4 P. 805, line 17

[sū. 1. 2 28. 136 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.] vital-breaths in the passage 'Therefore, the first food which one may come across should be offered' (Chānd. 5 19 1) And, finally, Vaiśvā- nara abides "within", which, more particularly, is a characteristic mark of the gastric fire,—the Vājasaneyins declare that Vaiśvānara abides within in the passage 'For he who knows this Vaiśvānara fire to be like a man, abiding within a man' (Śat Br 10 6.1 11). On account of such reasons like "words and the rest", and "on account of abiding within", the Highest Self cannot be understood,— (We reply) "No", "on account of teaching the vision (of the Lord) thus", i e. since such an object (viz. the gastric fire) is taught to be meditated on under the aspect of the Lord, i e since the Supreme Lord is enjoined to be meditated on as qualified by the gastric fire, i.e since the above-mentioned Supreme Soul, who is Vaiśvānara (or the universal soul) being the soul of all, is taught to be in the gastric fire and the rest as their soul If it be objected: In that case, let gastric fire itself be Vaiśvānara primarily,—we reply: no, "because that is impossible", i e. because having the heaven as the head and the rest is impossible on the part of the gastric fire. This means, it is possible on the part of the Highest Self alone, who is the soul of all, and not on the part of any one else. "And also", the Vājasa- neyins "read" "him", i e. Vaiśvānara, "as a person" in the passage: 'That Vaiśvānara fire is the person' (Śat Br 10 6.1.11). It is possible for the Highest Self to be a Person, He being the soul of all, but this is not possible if the mere gastric fire be understood here. The word "and" ¹ denotes that this is universally known, i.e. that the Highest Self is a Person is well-known from scriptural texts like- 'The Person, verily, is all this' (Śvet. 3 15), 'There is nothing higher than the Person' (Katha 3 11) and so on. SŪTRA 28 "FOR THAT VERY REASON, NOT THE DEITY, NOR THE ELEMENT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On account of those "very" reasons stated above, "the deity and the element" are "not" to be understood by the word 'Vaiśvānara'. ¹ 'Ca' in the sūtra.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 29. ADH 7 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 137 Vedānta-kaustubha “For that very reason”, i.e. on account of the very reasons stated above, the presiding “deity” of fire is not to be understood the word ‘Vaiśvānara’, and the “element”, i.e. the elemental fire, also is not to be understood. SŪTRA 29 “ (THERE IS) NO CONTRADICTION, EVEN (IF THE WORD “ VAISVĀ- NARA ” DENOTES THE LORD) DIRECTLY, JAIMINI (THINKS SO).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The Lord Vaiśvānara is ‘all and man’, i.e. the soul of all,—to be meditated on “directly” as such,—thus, the teacher “Jaimini” thinks, involves “no contradiction”. Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, the word ‘Vaiśvānara’ has been proved to be referring to Brahman, first on the ground of the reasons like ‘distinctive attributes of a common term’ (Br. Sū. 1.2.25) and the rest. Again, there being a doubt,—viz. on account of words and the rest, as well as on account of abiding within, it refers to the gastric fire,—it has been once more proved, for the sake of removing incompatibility, to be referring to Brahman alone, qualified by the gastric fire, on the ground of the reasons like: ‘because of teaching the vision (of the Lord) thus’ (Br. Sū. 1.2.27) and so on. Now, by showing that the word ‘Vaiśvānara’ denotes Brahman etymologically too, so that He may be directly worshipped as such, the author shows that another teacher too (viz. Jaimini) confirms his own view. The teacher “Jaimini” thinks that as the word ‘Vaiśvānara’, even without being viewed as denoting the Lord, only so far as He is qualified by the gastric fire, refers directly to the Highest Self, in- tending to designate as it does His special qualities,—so Vaiśvānara is to be meditated on “directly” as the Highest Self indeed. This view involves “no contradiction”.¹ ¹ I.e. it has been said in the previous sūtra that Vaiśvānara stands for the Lord only so far as the Lord is qualified by the gastric fire. But now it is said that Vaiśvānara stands for the Lord directly, without any qualification.

[sū. 1. 2. 30. 138 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.] Etymologically, ‘Vaiśvānara’ implies ‘he who is all and man’, He being the Universal Soul, or ‘one who is the man, i.e. the maker of all’, He being the Universal Cause; or ‘one by whom all men are to be controlled’, He being the Universal Controller The long vowel (i.e. ‘ā’ in the word ‘Vaiśvānara’) follows from the rule ‘when “nara” follows “viśva”, the “a” in the latter is lengthened to designate a name’ (Pāṇ 6 3 129, SD. K 1048¹). The taddhita-suffix (by which the word ‘Vaiśvānara’ is derived from the word ‘Vaiśvanara’) is added without changing the meaning, as in the case of ‘rākṣasa’ (derived from ‘rakṣas’), ‘vāyasa’ (derived from ‘vayas’) and so on.² The co-ordination of the words ‘Agni’ and ‘Vaiśvānara’, too, is appropriate ‘Agni’ is ‘one who goes, i.e. goes to or manifests himself in the heart-lotus’,—the ‘na’ (in the root ‘aṅg’) is elided in accordance with the rule. ‘And, the “na” of “aṅga” is elided’³ (Uṇādi-sūtra 490)⁴—, or ‘one who causes one to go, i.e. causes the first birth of the Universe SŪTRA 30 “ON ACCOUNT OF MANIFESTATION, ĀŚMARATHYA (THINKS SO).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha With a view to favouring His worshippers who are devoted to Him alone and to none else, the Highest Self though infinite, manifests Himself in accordance with the respective capacities of His devotees. As such, He can fittingly be regarded as of the size of merely a span, —this is so “on account of manifestation”, so the sage “Āśmarathya” thinks. Vedānta-kaustubha (The author) explains, in accordance with the approbation of Āśmarathya, the text about that which is of the size of merely a span. In the text: ‘But who meditates on the Vaiśvānara Self as of the measure of a span only and as of an unlimited dimension’ (Chānd.

¹ P. 654, vol. 1. ² Vide Pāṇ 4.1 104, SD K. 1106, p. 682, vol. 1, and Pāṇ. 5.4 38, SD. K. 2106, p. 936, vol. 1 ³ And ‘ni’ is added, as mentioned in the sūtra 488. Thus, aṅg = ag+ni = agni. ⁴ SD. K., p. 634, vol 2.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 31 ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 139 5 18 1), it is perfectly justifiable to hold that even one whose 'measure' or limit, has disappeared 'on all sides' or entirely ¹, i e. even the Highest Person, who is unlimited, can be of the measure of a span merely, i.e. of the extent measured by the thumb and the forefinger. How? "On account of manifestation." That is, with a view to favouring those who are devoted to none else except to Him, the Lord manifests Himself in the heart-lotus in a form, which is eternal, blissful and non-material, which is of the size of a span and is the fulfiller of the desire of His own devotees, just as He manifested Himself in the limited space of a pillar as a man-lion.² This is the view of the teacher Āśmarathya Or, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra), with a view to favouring the dull-witted devotees (i.e. who can grasp gross objects only), the Lord squeezes Himself, as it were, into gross regions only; though all-pervading, He limits Himself in accordance with their respective intelligence and manifests Himself in those respective places. Thus, "on account of manifestation", He can, very well, be of the measure of merely a span,—so thinks "Āśmarathya",—this is the sense. COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation of the word 'abhivyakteḥ' different, viz 'on account of definiteness', i e the texts speaks of the Lord of a definite extent with a view to rendering the thought of the meditating devotee more definite.³ SŪTRA 31 "ON ACCOUNT OF REMEMBRANCE, BĀDARI (THINKS SO)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The imagination of a body from head to foot is "on account of remembrance", i.e. for the purpose of recollection (or meditation),— so thinks the teacher "Bādari". ¹ Abhitaḥ vigataḥ mānaḥ = abhivimānaḥ. ² The reference is to the killing of Hiraṇyakaśipu by the Lord in the form of a man-lion Vide Mahā 3.15835, etc. ³ Śrī. B 1 2.30, p. 274, Part 1 ŚK. B. 1.2.30, p 392 Part 1

[SŪ. 1. 2 32. 140 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 7 | Vedānta-kaustubha On the enquiry What purpose is served by such a manifestation of a Being,—who is of the size of merely a span,—in the heart-lotus of the sharp-witted (i.e. those who are capable of grasping subtle things)? On the enquiry What purpose is served by such worship of a Being,—who is limited as having limbs like head and the rest in the heaven and so on,—on the part of the dull-witted (i.e. those who are capable of grasping gross things)?—it is said here The manifestation, in the heart-lotus, of the Highest Self as of the size of merely a span, similarly the imagination of His body, from head to foot, in the regions of the heaven and the rest, are "on account of remembrance", i.e. serve the purpose of recollection, or meditation in that way, for attaining the Supreme Lord This is the view of the teacher "Bādari" ———— SŪTRA 32 "ON ACCOUNT OF IDENTIFICATION, SO JAIMINI THINKS, FOR THUS (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The imagination of their ¹ breast and the rest as the sacrificial altar and so on is for the purpose of effecting "an identification" of Agni-hotra with the offering to the vital-breaths, which is a sub- sidiary element of the Vaiśvānara-vidyā, practised by a worshipper of Vaiśvānara,—"so" the teacher "Jaimini" thinks That very thing the scriptural text 'Now, he who offers the Agni-hotra, knowing this thus' (Chānd 5 24 2 ²), 'shows'. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be asked: If the Highest Self, having thus the three worlds as His body, be denoted by the term 'Vaiśvānara', then, what is the purpose of imagining the breast and the rest of the worshipper as the sacrificial altar and so on thus: 'The breast is the sacrificial altar, the hairs the sacrificial grass, the heart the Gārhapatya fire, the mind the Anvāhāryapacana fire' (Chānd. 5 18.2)?—the author replies here: —————————————————————————————————————————— ¹ I.e. of those who meditate on Vaiśvānara ² Ś, R, SK.

[sū. 1. 2. 33. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 141 The imagining of the worshippers as the sacrificial altar and the rest is for the purpose of effecting an "identification" of Agni-hotra with the offering to the vital-breath, which is a subsidiary element of the Vaiśvānara-vidyā, practised by the worshippers of Vaiśvānara, — "so" the teacher "Jaimini" thinks. "For thus", i.e. this very identification of the offering to the vital-breath and the Agni-hotra, "Scripture shows" in the following passage. 'Now, he who offers the Agni-hotra knowing this thus, his offering is made to all the worlds, to all beings, to all selves' (Chānd. 5.24 2). COMPARISON Baladeva The interpretation of the word 'sampatteḥ' different, viz 'on account of mysterious power or lordliness'. Hence the sūtra · '(The Lord is said to be of the measure of a span) on account of (His) mysterious power, so Jaimini (thinks), for thus Scripture shows (viz that the Lord is possessed of such powers)'.¹ SŪTRA 33 "AND THEY RECORD THIS IN THAT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And they record" "this", i.e. Vaiśvānara having the heaven as his head and so on, as a Person in the body of the worshipper. Here ends the second 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 And moreover, the Vājins "record" "this", i.e. the Lord Vaiśvā- nara, "in that", i.e. in the body of the worshipper, in the passage · 'He who knows this Vaiśvānara fire as a man, abiding within man' (Śat. Br. 10.6.1.11). That is to say, these too, viz. his being a person, ¹ G.B. 1.2.32, p. 142, Chap. 1.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 33. 142 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] as well as his abiding within, are indicative of the fact that Vaiśvānara is Brahman. The sense is that if the gastric fire be understood here, then the circumstance of abiding within a person will, of course, be possible, but not that of being like a person Hence, it is established that Vaiśvānara is the Highest Self. Here ends the section entitled 'Vaiśvānara' (7). Here ends the second quarter of the first chapter in the commentary, the holy Vedānta-kaustubha. COMPARISON Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. 'And they (viz the Ātharvani- kas) record this (viz. the existence of such mysterious powers) in that (viz. in the Lord)'.¹ Résumé The second quarter of the first chapter contains:— (1) 33 sūtras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Nimbārka ; (2) 32 sūtras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Śaṃkara ; (3) 33 sūtras and 6 adhikaranas, according to Rāmānuja ; (4) 32 sūtras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Bhāskara ; (5) 33 sūtras and 9 adhikaranas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha ; (6) 33 sūtras and 7 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva. Śaṃkara and Bhāskara and Baladeva omit the sūtra 16 in Nimbārka's commentary. Nimbārka omits the sūtra 24 in Bhās- kara's commentary. 1 G.B. 1.2.33, p. 143, Chap. 1.