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

[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.

FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyāya) THIRD QUARTER (Pāda) Adhikaraṇa 1 The section entitled 'The heaven, the earth, and so on' (Sūtras 1-7) SŪTRA 1 "THE SUPPORT OF THE HEAVEN, THE EARTH AND THE REST (IS BRAHMAN ALONE), ON ACCOUNT OF THE TERM 'OWN' " Vedānta-pārijāta saurabha "The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest", stated in the passage 'In whom the heaven' (Mund. 2.2.5¹) and so on, is Brahman, "on account of the term 'own'", i.e. on account of the word 'soul' and the rest which are denotative of Brahman. Vedānta-kaustubha Now the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that to be the support of the three worlds, too, is possible on the part of the Lord alone who has the heaven for His head and so on and is the soul of the three worlds. In the Muṇḍaka, we read: 'He in whom the heaven, the earth and the sky are woven, and the mind together with all the vital- breaths,—Him alone know as the one soul; give up other words. He is the bridge to immortality' (Muṇḍ. 2.2.5). Here a doubt arises—viz. whether that which is indicated as the support of the heaven and the rest by the locative 'in whom' is pradhāna or the individual soul, or the Supreme Soul, the cause of the birth and the rest of the world. What is suggested here to begin with? The prima facie view is as follows: Let pradhāna be the support. As it is found that an effect arises from and dissolves into its own cause, it is reasonable to hold that it has its own cause as its support. (This is so), also on account of the scriptural mention of 'bridge'. To be a bridge means to be limited; but Brahman is not limited as declared ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

144 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1 3. 1 ADH 1.] by the text 'Infinite, boundless' (Bṛh. 2.4.12) The term 'self' too may be applied to pradhāna thus — Pradhāna is the self, because of being the benefactor of the soul. Whoever is the benefactor of some one else is his self; just as (when it is said) 'Verily, Bhadrasena is my self' Or, else, let the individual soul be the support, as there is the mention of the word 'soul' in the text,—the word 'soul' denotes the individual soul primarily, since it is a sentient being;—as the soul is mentioned in Scripture as the support of sense-organs like mind and the rest; as the soul is said to be connected with the vein, as well as to be born, in the passage: 'Where the veins have congregated together like the spokes in the nave of a wheel, he moves about within, becoming manifold' (Muṇḍ. 2 2 6), and, finally, to be the support of the entire universe, the object to be enjoyed, fits in on the soul's part, it being an enjoyer. We reply "The support of the heaven, and the earth and the rest" is none but the Supreme Brahman. That is, 'dyau' and 'bhu' (make) 'dyubhuvau', that which begins with 'dyu-bhuvau' is 'dyu-bhuvāu ādi', i.e. all the things beginning with the heaven, and ending with the vital-breath,—their support is the Highest Self. Why? "On account of the term 'own'", i.e. on account of the term 'soul', denotative of itself, viz. of the Supreme Soul, the topic of dis- cussion, and characterized by an adjective as stated in the passage 'Him alone know as the one soul, give up other worlds' (Muṇḍ. 2.2 5),—here, from the adjective 'one' which denotes the Lord, the soul of all, it is known that the 'soul' is the Supreme Soul;—also on account of the word 'bridge', mentioned in the passage 'The bridge to immortality' (Muṇḍ. 2.2.5), i e. the 'bridge' or the support meaning the cause of attaining 'immortality' or salvation. In another scriptural text, viz 'By knowing him thus, one becomes immortal on earth' (Tait. Ār. 3.12 1), He alone is celebrated to be the cause of the attainment of immortality. Connection with the artery, too, is possible on the part of the Supreme Soul, in accordance with the scriptural text: 'But surrounded by the veins he hangs like a sheath' (Mahānār. 11.9). In accordance with the following scrip- tural and Smṛti texts, viz. 'Not born, he is born in many ways' (Vj. S. 31.169 2; Tait. Ār. 3.13.1 3), 'Though unborn, the unchange- able soul' (Gītā 4.6), it is also possible for Him to be born in many 1 P. 199 2 P. 857, line 17. 3 P. 201.

[sū. 1. 3. 2. ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 145 ways. Finally, to be the support of the instruments of the individual soul, too, is possible on the part of the Supreme Soul who is the support of all The following aphorisms ¹, secondary in nature, are but amplifications of this primary aphorism SŪTRA 2 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION (OF BRAHMAN) THE OBJECT TO BE APPROACHED BY THE FREED." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest is Brahman alone Why? "On account of the designation," of such a support alone as "the object to be approached by the freed", in the passage 'When the seer sees the golden-coloured Creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahmā, then the knower, having discarded merit and demerit, stainless, attains the highest identity' (Muṇḍ. 3 1 13 ²) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest is none but Brahman Why? "On account of the designation (of Brahman) as the object to be approached by the freed." That which is to be approached, i e. obtained, by those who are freed from the fettor of mundane existence is "the object to be approached by the freed", on account of the "designation", 1.e. indication, of that ³. The sense is: The reality that is admitted to be the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest, to be one, to be the bridge to immortality, and is celebrated elsewhere also as the object to be approached by the freed,—that very same reality, the one topic of all the Vedas and without an equal or a superior, is designated as the object to be obtained by the freed, in the passages: 'The knot of the heart is undone, all doubts are cut off, and his works perish, when he, who is high and low, is seen' (Muṇḍ. 2.2.8), 'Just as the flowing rivers disappear into the ocean discarding name and form, so the knower, freed from name and form, goes to the Person, who is higher than ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ Viz. Br. Sū. 1.3.2–7. ² R, ŚK, B. ³ This explains the compound 'muktopasṛpya-vyapadeśāt'. 10

[sū. 1. 3. 3. 146 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 1.] the high' (Muṇḍ 3.2.8) The phrase 'high and low' means: One to whom the high, i.e. Brahmā, Śiva, and the rest, are inferior The phrase 'higher than the high' means: the Person who is higher than the high, i e. the individual soul or prakṛti 1 COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Reading slightly different, viz adds a 'ca' in the end.² SŪTRA 3 "NOT THE INFERENCE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF TEXTS TO THAT EFFECT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Pradhāna, which is arrived at through inference, is not that support, on account of the absence of texts denoting it. Vedānta-kaustubha The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest cannot be "the inference". The non-sentient cause which is without any connection with Brahman, viz. pradhāna, inferred by the Sāṁkhyas on the ground of non-sentient effects, like the elements and the rest ³, is said to be "the inference", and that is not the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. Why? "On account of the absence of texts to that effect." That is, the "text to that effect" is 'tac-chabda', "absence of text to that effect" is 'atac-chabda', on account of that ⁴, or on account of the absence, here, of texts denoting the

1 Note that Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa understand the word 'Vyapadeśāt' as referring to different passages. 2 Śrī. B. 1 2 3, p. 283, Part 1. ŚK. B. 1.3.2, p. 401, Part 4. 3 First, we infer that every effect must have a cause, that cause another cause and so on, and finally there must be an uncaused first cause. Secondly, we infer that this uncaused first cause must be non-sentient, since the effects which we perceive are non-sentient, and the effect and its cause must be similar in nature. It is in this way that the Sāṁkhyas arrive at non-sentient first cause or pradhāna. 4 This explains the compound 'atac-chabdāt'.

[sū. 1. 3. 4. 147 ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA inferrible pradhāna. On the contrary, there are texts denoting a sentient being, such as, ‘He who is omniscient’ (Muṇḍ 1.1.9., 2 2.7) and so on. COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Reading different, viz. take this sūtra and the next as one sūtra.¹ ――――― SŪTRA 4 “AND THE BEARER OF THE VITAL-BREATH.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “The bearer of the vital-breath” also is not the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest Why? On account of the very same absence of texts to that effect. Vedānta-kaustubha The words: ‘not, on account of the absence of texts to that effect’ are to be supplied from the preceding aphorism. “The bearer of the vital-breath”, i.e the individual soul, too, is not the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest, on account of the absence of texts to that effect;—that means: although the term ‘soul’ is equally applicable to the individual soul and the Supreme Soul, yet just as in this section, there are texts like ‘Him alone know as one —He is the bridge to immortality’ (Muṇḍ 2.2 5), ‘He whois omniscient’ (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9; 2.2.7) and so on, establishing the peculiar qualities of the Supreme Soul, so there are no texts here, establishing the peculiar qualities of the individual soul;—also because it is impossible for the individual soul, which is atomic by nature, to be the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. This aphorism is taken separately, because of its association with the following aphorisms.² ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ Śrī B. 1.3.3, p. 283, Part 1. ŚK. B. 1.3.3, p. 403, Part 4. ² That is, it would not have been necessary to introduce a special sūtra for the individual soul,—which like pradhāna is precluded in the preceding sūtra, —if it were not for the reasons given in the following three sūtras, which apply only to the individual soul, and not to pradhāna.

148 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 3. 5–6. ADH. 1.] COMPARISON All others omit the 'ca' in the end ¹ SŪTRA 5 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF DIFFERENCE” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Moreover, “on account of the designation of difference” also between the knower and the object to be known, the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest is not the bearer of the vital-breath, (or the individual soul) Vedānta-kaustubha The bearer of the vital-breath is not to be understood as the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest Why? “On account of the designation of difference”, i.e. because the difference between the two, viz. between the individual soul—which is possessed of little knowledge and is subject to bondage and release through the Lord’s māyā consisting of the three gunas—and the Omniscient Lord, as the knower and the object to be known, is designated by the holy Scripture itself in the passage. ‘Him alone know as one’ (Muṇḍ. 2.2 5) The purpose of this repeated declarations of difference is to point out that with a view to attaining His nature, one should practise meditation on Him, based on a true knowledge about Him. SŪTRA 6 “ON ACCOUNT OF THE TOPIC.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The Supreme Self being the topic, the individual soul is not to be understood as the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. ¹ Ś.B. 1.3.5, p. 310. Śrī. B. 1.3.4, p. 283, Part 1. Bh. B. 1.3.5, p. 52. ŚK. B. 1.3.4, p 404, Part 4. B.B. 1.3.5.

[sū. 1. 3 7. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 149 Vedānta-kaustubha It is not that the individual soul constitutes the topic so that it may be understood here. None but the Supreme Soul is the topic here, as evident from the introductory passage. “ ‘What, my reverend Sir, being known, all this comes to be known” ? ’ (Muṇḍ. 1.1.3),—all things do not become known when the individual soul is known, since all things have not the individual soul as their soul— and as established by the fact that in the passage: ‘Now, the higher is that whereby that Imperishable is apprehended’ (Muṇḍ. 1.1.5) and so on, the Supreme Soul alone is referred to. SŪTRA 7 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF ABIDING AND EATING.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “On account of the abiding” of the Highest Self as a non-eater, as well as ‘on account of the eating’ of the individual soul, as laid down in the text: ‘Two birds’ (Muṇḍ. 3.1.1; cf also Śvet. 4.6 1), the individual soul is not the support of the heaven and the earth. Vedānta-kaustubha The author is once more explaining statements regarding the difference between the individual soul and Brahman. The individual soul is not the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. Why? “On account of abiding and eating”, “sthiti” and “odana” (make) “sthityodane”—on account of that 2. “On account of the abiding” of one bird in the tree, i.e. the body, without eating the fruit of work and shining, and “on account of the eating” of the fruit of work by the other as subject to karmas,—as laid down in the text which refors to the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest, viz. ‘Of these two, one tastes the sweet berry, the other looks on without eating’ (Muṇḍ. 1.1.3),—the difference between the individual soul and Supreme Soul is known. Hence, it is established 1 Ś. R, Bh, ŚK, B 2 This explains the compound ‘sthityodanābhyām’

150 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ 1. 3. 8. ADH. 2.] that the independent and omniscient Supreme Soul alone is the bridge to immortality; and as the soul of all, He is also the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. Here ends the section entitled 'The heaven, the earth and the rest' (1) COMPARISON Śaṁkara Reading and interpretation same, but points out at the end in his usual manner that the distinction between the individual soul and Brahman is no more real than that between the ether within a pot and the universal ether and so on.¹ Adhikaraṇa 2: The section entitled 'The plenty'. (Sūtras 8-9) SŪTRA 8 "THE PLENTY (IS THE LORD), BECAUSE OF THE TEACHING (OF IT) AS ABOVE SERENITY (VIZ. THE VITAL-BREATH)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The Plenty, taught by the highest teacher, the venerable Sanat- kumāra, to our preceptor, the reverend Nārada, in the passage: 'But the Plenty alone should be enquired after' (Chānd. 7.22 1 ²), is not the vital-breath, but the Highest Person Why? "Because of the teaching" of the Plenty as "above" the vital-breath. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that the text: 'But the Plenty alone should be enquired after' (Chānd. 7.22.1) and so on, refers to Brahman. ¹ Ś.B 1 3.7, p. 31 ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[sū. 1. 3. 8. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 151 The following is recorded by the Chāndogas: '“It has been heard by me from men like you that one who knows the soul crosses over sorrow. I am such a sorrowing one, reverend sir! Cause me, sir, to cross over the sorrow”' (Chānd. 7.1.3), thus asked by Nārada, his preceptor, the reverend Sanatkumāra, the teacher of the doctrine of salvation, taught: 'The name is Brahman' (Chānd. 7 1.5). Again, asked thus: '“Is there, sir, more than name”?' (Chānd. 7.1.5), he taught: '“Speech, verily, is more than name”' (Chānd. 7.2.1). In this way, fifteen objects, beginning with name and ending with the vital-breath, were taught.¹ After having taught the vital-breath, he, without being asked any further question, taught the following '“But he, verily, speaks superiorly who speaks superiorly through truth”' (Chānd. 7.16.1), '“But the Plenty alone should be enquired after”. “I enquire, sir, after the Plenty.” “Where one does not see another, does not hear another, does not know another, that is the Plenty. But where one sees another, hears another, knows another, that is the small”' (Chānd. 7.23.1–24.1). Here the term 'plenty' (bhūman) denotes 'muchness'. It is derived in the following manner: The suffix 'imanic' is added to the word 'bahu' (much) in the sense of 'the nature thereof'², in accordance with the rule. 'The (suffix) “imanic” is optionally added to the words “pṛthu” and the rest' (Pāṇ. 5.1.122, SD. K. 1784 ³) (in order to indicate the sense 'the nature thereof'—Pāṇ. 5.1.119, SD. K. 1781). Then the root (viz. bahu) and the suffix (viz. imanic) undergo a change in accordance with the rule: 'After “bahu”, the first letters of “iman” and “īyas” affixes are elided, and “bahu” is replaced by the word “bhū”' (Pāṇ. 6.4.154, 158; SD. K. 2017 ⁴). Here 'muchness' means 'immensity' (i.e. quantitative greatness), and not numerosity (i.e. numerical greatness), because just as the term 'bahu' denotes number, as in the examples: 'In expressing numerosity the plural case affix is used' (Pāṇ. 1.4.21 : SD. K. 187 ⁵), 'Many, purified by the penance of knowledge' (Gītā. 4.10), 'After many births' (Gītā. 7.19) and so on, so it is seen to be applied in the sense of 'immensity' also, in contrast to smallness, as in the example: 'He who renders service, be it great or small, to one who has heard Scripture'. Here, too, the term 'plenty' being used ¹ Vide Chānd. 7.1 et seq. ² Tasya bhāvaḥ ³ P. 894, vol. 1. Correct quotation translated: 'Pṛthvādibhya imanic vā'. ⁴ P. 908, vol. 1. That is, bahu+imanic = bhū+man = bhūman. ⁵ P. 114, vol. 1.

[SŪ. 1 3. 8. 152 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.] in contrast to smallness in the passage: 'There is no pleasure in the small' (Chānd 7 23.1), its meaning is nothing but 'immensity'. Thus, there is no pleasure in the small, but the Plenty alone is pleasure. Hence 'The Plenty alone is to be enquired into' (Chānd 7 23 1). That is, the Plenty, or the Supreme Soul alone, who is of the form of pleasure characterized by unsurpassed greatness, should be enquired after by one desiring salvation and wishing to attain pleasure charac- terized by unsurpassed greatness When the reverend Sanatkumāra said this, the reverend Nārada said: '"I enquire, sir, after the Plenty"' (Chānd 7 23.1) That is, 'Sir', meaning, O reverend teacher ! I desire to know the Plenty alone in particular. Therefore, Sanat- kumāra told him the characteristic marks of the Plenty by means of a positive (indicating what it is) and a negative (indicating what it is not) proposition, thus 'where' (Chānd. 7 24 1) and so on,--this is the sense of the text. Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether the Plenty is the vital-breath or the Supreme Soul. The vital-breath, holds the prima facie view, because in the previous passage. 'The vital-breath is more than hope' (Chānd. 7.15.1), the vital-breath alone is indicated, and because after the teaching about the vital-breath, there are no further question and answer (as there were in the previous cases), viz. '"Is there, sir, more than name" ?' (Chānd. 7 1.5), '"Speech, verily, is more than name"' (Chānd. 7.2.1) By the term 'vital-breath', the individual soul, endowed with the vital-breath, is to be understood, and not merely a kind of air,--because, from the passage: 'The vital-breath is the father, the vital-breath the mother' (Chānd 7.15 1), the vital- breath is known to be a sentient being; and because in the introductory text, viz. 'One who knows the soul crosses over sorrow' (Chānd 7.1.3), as well as in the concluding text 'To the soul alone belongs all this' 1 (Chānd. 7.25.2), the term 'soul' is found employed The passage. 'Where one does not see another' (Chānd. 7.24.1) and so on, too, fittingly applies to the individual soul, because all its activities like seeing and the rest cease during its state of deep sleep; and further, because all its practical activities like external perceptions and the rest cease when its own real nature, different from the body, the sense- organs, buddhi and the rest, is known. Hereby, it should be known that texts like: 'Verily, the Plenty is pleasure' (Chānd 7.23 1), 1 Correct quotation · 'Ātmaivedam sarvam'. Vide Chānd 7 25 2, p. 402.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 8 ADH. 2] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 153 'Verily, the vital-breath is immortal' (Bṛh. 1.6.3) and so on, are all to be explained as referring to the individual soul, possessing the vital-breath. With regard to it, we reply: The Plenty is the Supreme Soul alone and not the individual soul, possessing the vital-breath. Why? "Because of the teaching (of it) as above serenity." "Serenity" means one in whom there is complete serenity, i.e. the individual soul, celebrated in the Scriptural text: 'Thus serenity, having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form' (Chānd. 8.3.4) and so on. (The above phrase means: because of the teaching of it as) "above" that which is denoted by the term: "vital-breath". In the text: 'But he speaks superiorly who speaks through truth' (Chānd. 7.26.1) from the term 'but', the difference between the subsequent teaching about the Plenty and the prior one about the vital-breath is known. The sense is that since the teaching about the Plenty is different from the teaching about the vital-breath, the meaning of the word "plenty" is different from the meaning of the term "vital-breath." (An alternative explanation of the sūtra.) Or, else, (the phrase means) because of the teaching of the worshipper of truth as higher than the worshipper of the vital-breath, in the passage 'But he, verily, speaks superiorly' (Chānd. 7.16.1); i.e. owing to a difference between the worshippers, there is a difference between the objects to be worshipped as well. The sense is this: If it be objected: In accordance with your statement, viz. that the Plenty is that alone, which is denoted by the term truth, demarcated as higher than the individual soul,—just as each of the fifteen objects, beginning with name and ending with speech, is taught as successively higher by the reverend Sanatkumāra, asked by the reverend Nārada,—how do you know that truth is taught as something higher,—(we reply:) Having stated that a knower of the vital-breath is a superior speaker in the passage: 'Verily, by seeing this, by thinking this, by knowing this, one becomes a superior speaker' (Chānd. 7.15.4), and having distin- guished the worshipper of truth from the worshipper of the vital- breath by the term 'but' in the passage: 'But he, verily, speaks superiorly, who speaks superiorly through truth' (Chānd. 7.16.1), Scripture teaches truth, the cause of being a superior speaker in this case (Chānd. 7.16.1), as higher than the vital-breath, the cause of being a superior speaker in the previous case (Chānd. 7.15.4).

[SŪ. 1. 3. 8. 154 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.] The instrumental case 'through truth' (satyena) follows the rule: 'The third case-ending is added to a word denoting a mark or an attribute which indicates the existence of a particular state or condi- tion' (Pāṇ. 2 3.21; SD. K. 566 1). The clause 'who speaks', etc. means: who speaks superiorly through truth which figuratively implies the Supreme Brahman, the object to be worshipped. The word 'truth' is well known to be denoting Brahman, as in the passages: 'Verily, the name of this Brahman is truth' (Chānd 8.3.4), 'Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite' (Tait 2 1) and so on. 'Being a superior speaker' means being the speaker of the supremacy of one's own object of worship, and this amounts to declaring the unsurpassed- ness of the Deity to be worshipped. The suffix 'śatṛ' in 'by seeing this' and the rest follows the rule: 'The present participle is used to denote the manner or the cause of an action' (Pāṇ. 3.2.126, SD. K. 3103 2) That is, the direct vision of the Deity to be worshipped is the cause of being a superior speaker The sense is that it becomes possible for one to be such a superior speaker only through the grace of the Deity worshipped by him, and apprehended through direct vision Moreover, the very permission to speak the truth, giving up being a superior speaker through merely the vital-breath, asked for in the passage: '"May I, sir, speak superiorly through truth"' (Chānd. 7.16.1), indicates the termination of the section of the vital- breath Here, the term 'soul', too, can have a consistent meaning only if the Supreme Soul be understood, since to be the cause of all, mentioned in the passage: 'To the self alone all this belongs' (Chānd. 7.26.1 3), is impossible on the part of any one else. His Holiness will speak of this in subsequent aphorisms.4 COMPARISON Baladeva He gives two alternative explanations of the sūtra the last of which agrees with the explanation given by Nimbārka. The first explanation is: 'The Plenty (is Brahman), because it is immense joy, and because it is taught as the highest'.5 1 P. 423, vol. 2. 2 P. 558, vol. 2. 3 For correct quotation see footnote 1, p. 152. 4 Vide Br. Sū. 2.1.4-35. 5 G.B. 1.3.8.

[sū. 1. 3. 9. ADH. 2] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 155 SŪTRA 9 “ AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ATTRIBUTES.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “And” because attributes like ‘being of the form of unsurpassed pleasure’, ‘being immortal’, ‘being established on one's own great- ness’ and the rest are “appropriate” on the part of the Highest Self alone, the Plenty is none but the Highest Self. Vedānta-kaustubha The attributes, mentioned in the section of the Plenty, which are not possible on the part of any one else, being “appropriate” in reference to the Highest Self alone, it is known that the Plenty is the Highest Self. Thus, the passage: ‘Where one does not see another’ (Chānd 7 24.1), means ‘where’ one, immersed in pleasure characterized by unsurpassed greatness, ‘does not see’, i e. notice, ‘another’, i e. petty worldly pleasure, the contrary of the pleasure which is characterized by greatness,—just as one who has drunk the nectar, does not notice any other drink. Moreover, ‘where’ one, plunged in pleasure, ‘does not see’ any sorrow, the contrary of pleasure, i.e. comes to be endowed with every pleasure and delivered from every sorrow. The term ‘where’ means ‘by being attached to whom’. Such attributes of ‘being the giver of unsurpassed pleasure’, ‘being the remover of all sorrow’ and the rest are appropriate on the part of the Highest Self alone, and not on that of the individual soul, denoted by the term ‘vital-breath’. Further, as the attributes of ‘being immortal by nature’, ‘being established on one's own great- ness’, ‘being the creator of all’ and the rest,—mentioned in the pas- sages: ‘“That which is the Plenty is, verily, the immortal’—‘Sir, On what is it established?’ ‘On its own greatness’” (Chānd. 7.24.1), ‘“He alone is below”’ (Chānd. 7 25.1), ‘From the soul the vital- breath’ (Chānd 7.26.1) and so on,—are appropriate on the part of the Highest Self alone, so it is established that the Plenty is none but the Highest Self. Here ends the section entitled ‘The Plenty’ (2).

[SŪ. 1. 3, 10. 156 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3 ] Adhikaraṇa 3. The section entitled 'The im- perishable'. (Sūtras 10-12) SŪTRA 10 "THE IMPERISHABLE (IS BRAHMAN), BECAUSE OF SUPPORTING THE END OF THE ETHER." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The Imperishable is Brahman. Why? "Because of its support- ing" the ether, indicated as the support of the effects in past, present and future. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that the Bṛhadāraṇyaka passage: 'He said: "That, verily, is the Imperishable"' (Bṛh 3 8 8) and so on, refers to Brahman. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka we read: '"In whom is the ether woven, warp and woof?" He said: "That, verily, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short, non-long, non-red, non-lubricous, without shadow"' (Bṛh 3.8 8) and so on. A doubt arises, viz. whether here pradhāna is understood by the term 'Imperishable', or the individual soul, or the Supreme Brahman. What is suggested, to begin with? The prima facie view is as follows: Let pradhāna be denoted by the term 'Imperishable' because, to be the supporter of its own effects fits in on its part, and because non- grossness and the rest, too, fit in on its part, it being admitted to be without form. Or, let the individual soul be implied by the term 'Imperishable', since it is possible for it to be the supporter of all non-sentient objects, the objects of its own enjoyment. With regard to it, we reply. The Imperishable is the Supreme Brahman. Why? "On account of supporting (all things) ending with the ether", i.e. on account of supporting that which ends with the ether, viz. the group of effects beginning with the earth, or the group of effects, beginning with the earth and ending with the ether. To the query: '"That, O Yājñavalkya, which is above the heaven, that which is beneath the earth, that which is between these heaven and the earth, that which is past, present and future ¹, in whom is all that woven, ¹ Omits 'ācakṣata', vide Bṛh. 3 8 6, p 168.

[sū 1 3 10. ADH 3] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 157 warp and woof ?'''' (Bṛh. 3 8 6), the answer being given: '''In the ether alono all that is inter-woven, warp and woof''' (Bṛh 3.8.7), Gārgī asked again: '''In whom, verily, is the ether interwoven, warp and woof''?' (Bṛh. 3 8 7). Then, the answer given was that the support of (all things), beginning with the earth and ending with the other, is the Imperishable, in the passage: 'He said: "That, verily, is the Imperishable''' (Bṛh. 3.8.8) and so on. Thus, on account of supporting the group of effects, beginning with the earth and ending with the ether, known from the above question and answer, the Imperishable is none but Brahman Or else, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra;) "The end", i.e. the limit or the cause, of the "ether", meaning the atmospheric ether ¹, is the non-manifest pradhāna,—"on account of supporting it". That is, the Imperishable,—mentioned as the support of that which is indicated as the support of all objects in past, present and future, in the passage beginning: 'That which is above' (Bṛh. 3.7 7); which is denoted by the term 'ether'; and which has the names 'non- manifest', 'subtle', 'pradhāna' and the rest,—is not pradhāna, but Brahman alono ² COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation of the term 'ambarānta' different, viz. '(all things) ending with the ether' ³. Śaṁkara uses the term 'Brahman' here ⁴, although evidently from his point of view Brahman cannot be such a support, but Īśvara ¹ I.e the ether, in the ordinary sense, as distinguished from the ether which denotes pradhāna ² Note that the first explanation given by Śrīnivāsa tallies with the expla- nations of Śaṁkara and Bhāskara, the second with those of Rāmānuja and Nimbārka and others ³ Ś B 1.3.10, p. 318 Bh. B. 1.3 10, p. 55. See Śrīnivāsa above. ⁴ P. 319, 'Na ca ayam ambarānta-dhṛtiḥ Brahmaṇo'nyatra saṁbhavati', etc.