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

[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.

[sū. 1. 3. 11-12. 158 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.] SŪTRA 11 “ AND THIS (SUPPORTING) (BELONGS TO THE LORD), ON ACCOUNT OF COMMAND.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “And this” supporting belongs to the Highest Person alone. Why? Because (the Imperishable, the supporter) is mentioned by Scripture to be a commander, in the passage: ‘Verily, at the command of this Imperishable, Gārgī, the sun and the moon stand held apart’ (Brh 3 8 9 ¹). Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz . Very well, let pradhāna be not denoted by the term ‘Imperishable’. But, as, to be such a support fits in on the part of the individual soul, the enjoyer of material objects; as, possess- ing the attributes of non-grossness and the rest too fits in on its part; and, as, finally, if the individual soul be understood, then an etymo- logical meaning (of the term ‘Imperishable’) is possible, viz.: ‘The Imperishable is that which does not perish, i.e. the individual soul,— let the individual soul alone be implied by the term ‘Imperishable’,— the author replies here:— The supporting of the body and the rest alone,—the abode where the individual soul experiences the fruits of its own works,—is possible by the individual soul “And this” supporting is the work of the Highest Self alone, and not of any one else. Why? “On account of command”, i.e. because of the mention of command in the passage. ‘Verily, at the command of this Imperishable, Gārgī, the sun and the moon stand held apart’ (Brh. 3.8.9) and so on. ‘Prakṛṣṭa’, i.e. unrestricted, ‘śāsana’ is ‘praśāsana’, i e. unrestricted commanding.² SŪTRA 12 “ AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXCLUSION OF ANOTHER NATURE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Here, by the term ‘Imperishable’ neither pradhāna or the indivi- dual soul can be understood. The Supreme Being alone is the meaning ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² This explains the word ‘praśāsanāt’ in the sūtra

[SŪ. 1. 3. 13. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 159 of the term 'Imperishable' Why? "On account of the exclusion of another nature", in the passage: 'Verily, that Imperishable, Gārgī, is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the unknown knower' (Bṛh. 3.8.11 ¹). Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason, too, the Highest Self alone is denoted by the term 'Imperishable'. Why? "On account of the exclusion of other nature", i.e. the "nature" "of another", viz. of pradhāna or the individual soul, or the "nature" "of another two" (make) "another nature",² "on account of the exclusion" of that.³ The concluding passage, viz. '"Verily, that Imperishable, Gārgī, is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the unknown knower. None but it is a seer, . . ⁴, none but it is a thinker, none but it is a knower. Verily in this Imperishable, Gārgī, the ether is inter- woven, warp and woof"' (Bṛh. 3 8.11), excludes a nature other than Brahman. Thus, pradhāna is excluded on the ground of the attributes of a sentient being, viz. being a seer and the rest; and the individual soul is excluded on the ground of the teaching that the Being who is unseen by all is the seer of all, and so on. Hence, it is established that by the term 'Imperishable' the Highest Self alone is understood. Here ends the section entitled 'The imperishable' (3). Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled 'One sees'. (Sūtra 13) SŪTRA 13 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION (OF HIS QUALITIES), HE IS THE OBJECT WHICH ONE SEES." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The object which one sees, mentioned in the passage 'He sees the Person, lying in the city' (Praśna 5.5 ⁵), is not Brahmā, residing ¹ Ś, B, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Anya-bhāva. ³ This explains the compound 'anya-bhāva-vyāvṛtteḥ'. ⁴ Omitted portion: 'None else other than it is a hearer' Vide Bṛh. 3.8.11, p 171 ⁵ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B

160 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ 1. 3. 13 ADH. 4.] in the Brahma-world and included within the Brahmāṇḍa.¹ But the Highest Self alone, the topic of discussion, the Lord of His own special and non-material Brahma-world, is "the object which one sees". Why? "On account of the designation" of His qualities in the passage: 'That which is tranquil, ageless, fearless' (Praśna 5 7²) and so on Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, it has been said that prakṛti and the individual soul are not understood by the word 'Imperishable' which denotes Brahman. Now it is being pointed out,—by means of this aphorism, as well as by the text dealing with that topic,—that prakṛti (or the material sphere) is rejectible, while the world of the Highest Self is acceptable, and that the individual soul is the worshipper, one who is approaching (a goal), while the Highest Self is the object to be worshipped and the goal to be resorted to We find the following text in the Praśna-upaniṣad of the Āthar- vaṇas, introducing the topic of discussion thus: 'Verily, that, O Satyakāma, which is the syllable "om", is the higher and the lower Brahman. Hence a knower, through this very support, reaches one of these two' (Praśna 5.2), and continuing: "Again, he who meditates on the Highest Person with this very syllable 'om' of three elements comes to the light in the sun. As a snake is freed from its skin, so, verily, he is freed from sins. He is led by the Sāman verse to the world of Brahman. He sees the Person, lying in the city, and higher than the highest mass of souls" (Praśna 5 5) Here a doubt arises, viz. whether "the object which one sees",—i e. the Reality which one sees, in accordance with the declaration, viz. that through the meditation on Him, the worshipper of the three elements, freed from all sins, having come to the sun, and having been led by the Sāman verses to the world of Brahman, sees that very Person, lying in the City,—is the four-faced Brahmā, the presiding deity of all souls, and indicated before as the 'lower Brahman'; or whether the object which one sees is the Highest Person, denoted by the term 'Supreme Brah- man', the cause of the whole world and the topic of Scripture. The prima facie view is as follows: Let the four-faced Brahmā be the ¹ For the nature and constituent of a Brahmāṇḍa, vide V. R. M., pp. 32 et seq. ² R, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 13 ADH. 4] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 161 object which one sees. As ¹ it has been stated before that the wor- shipper of the praṇava (= om) of one element and the worshipper of the praṇava of two elements respectively attain the world of man and the world of the ether as fruits, so the world of Hiraṇyagarbha,— who represents the individual souls in their collective aspect,—higher than the ether, should be understood as designated as the fruit belong- ing to the worshipper (of the praṇava) of three elements. The object of the perception of a person, who has come to that world, is he (the four-faced) alone, the ruler of that world. It is quite appropriate to hold that the person, residing in that world and representing the individual souls in their collective aspect, is superior to those discrete souls which are embodied beings, yet are superior to the body, the sense-organs, etc. Hence the object which one sees is the four-faced Brahmā. On this suggestion, we reply: The Highest Self alone, the topic of discussion and the cause of the world, is the object which one sees. Why? "On account of designation", i.e. on account of the designation of the qualities of the Highest Self, such as, 'being the object to be attained by the wise', 'being tranquil', 'being ageless', 'being immor- tal', 'being fearless' and the rest, mentioned in the passage: 'Through this very syllable "om" as the support, a knower reaches that which is tranquil, ageless, immortal, fearless, the supreme, the supreme goal' ² (Praśna 5.7). 'A mass of souls' implies one who has connec- tion with the body and the rest, generated by karmas; and that (viz. connection with the body, etc.) is declared by Scripture to be pertaining to the four-faced Brahmā too, in the passage: 'He who first creates Brahmā' (Śvet. 6.18). Nor is the world of the four-faced Brahmā higher than the ether, it being included among the heaven and the rest. The world, mentioned in the passage: 'He sees the Person, lying within the city' (Praśna 5.5), is not the world of Brahmā,— otherwise called the 'world of truth' and an abode for the enjoyment of the fruits of works, but is the world of Brahman,—who is the topic of discussion and the object which one sees,—to be approached by the freed, it being indicated as the sleeping-place of the Person, higher than even the 'mass of souls' which itself is higher than all worlds.

¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason, in accordance with Pāṇ. 3.2.126, SD. K. 3103. ² 'Parāyaṇam' not included under the original text. 11

162' VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 3. 13. ADH. 4.] This very world of the Supreme Brahman is declared as the object to be attained by the wise by another Upaniṣad of the same Athar- vanas, beginning "‘The place which all the Vedas record, that which all the austerities declare, wishing what people practise chastity, that place I tell you in brief’" (Kaṭha 2.15), and continuing ‘That is the best support, that is the supreme support. By knowing that support, one rejoices in the world of Brahman’ (Kaṭha 2.17). That very Upaniṣad declares the unattainableness of this (world of Brahman) by the non-knower, and its attainableness by the knower, as well as its difference from mundane existence in the passages ‘But he who has not understanding, who is inattentive, and ever impure, does not reach that place, and goes to transmigratory existence. But he who has understanding, who is attentive and ever pure, reaches that place, whence he is not born again. A man, however, who has under- standing as his charioteer, the mind as the rein, reaches the end of the journey, that highest place of Viṣṇu’ (Kaṭha 3.7–9). In the Śānti- parva, it is said in the beginning of the Hārita-gītā ‘Yudhiṣṭhira said: "A man of what nature, of what conduct, of what knowledge, of what resort, attains the place of Brahman, that is higher than prakṛti and eternal?" Bhīṣma said. "He who is engaged in the religious duties in connection with salvation, who is abstemious, who has conquered the senses, attains the supreme place that is higher than prakṛti and eternal"’ (Mahā. 12.9968-9969).¹ From such question and answer by the wisest men, the superiority of the world of Brahman—the object of enquiry—to prakṛti, its attainableness only through the religious duties in connection with salvation, and its eternity, are established. Hence, it is established that the object which one sees is Brahman, lying in the city, and higher than prakṛti, in its effected and in its causal conditions. Here ends the section entitled ‘One sees’ (4). COMPARISON Śaṁkara Interpretation different, viz. according to him, the question is whether the higher or the lower Brahman is meant here, and not ¹ P. 716, lines 22-23, vol 3.

[sū. 1. 3. 14. ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 163 whether Brahman or Brahmā, the four-faced. The conclusion, of course, is that the higher Brahman is meant.¹ Adhikaraṇa 5. The section entitled 'The small'. (Sūtras 14–23) SŪTRA 14 "THE SMALL (ETHER) IS BRAHMAN, ON ACCOUNT OF WHAT FOLLOWS" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The "small" ether, mentioned in the passage: 'In this city of Brahman is a small lotus, a chamber; small is the ether within it' (Chānd. 8.1 1²), can be the Highest Self alone. Why? "On account of what follows", i.e. on account of the peculiar qualities of the Highest Self, which are designated subsequently in the passage: 'As large is this ether, so large is that ether within the space. In it both the heaven and the earth are contained. This soul is free from sins, ageless' (Chānd. 8.1.3³) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, on the ground of the text. 'He sees the Person lying in the city' (Praśna 5.5), 'lying within the city', as well as 'being the object which one sees', fit in on the part of the Highest Self as possessing a manifest auspicious form. In the very same manner, smallness, too, fits in on His part as residing in the abode, viz. the heart-lotus. With this in his mind, the reverend author of the aphorisms says now: We find the following text in the Chāndogya immediately after the doctrine of the Plenty⁴. 'Now what is within this city of Brahman is a small-lotus, a chamber; small is the ether within it. What is within that should be searched for, that, verily, should be enquired into' (Chānd 8.1.1). The meaning of the text, according to us, is as follows. 'what is' within 'this city of Brahman',—i.e. within the body which is the abode where the individual soul, a part of Brahman, enjoys the fruit of its karmas and which is the place where it realizes ¹ S B. 1.3.13, p. 321 'Kim asmin vākye paraṁ Brahma abhidhātavyam upadiśyata ahasvit aparam iti'. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ³ Op. cit. ⁴ V.K., 1.3.8.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 14 164 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] Brahman,—is a "small", i.e. a tiny 'lotus', viz the heart, well-known from Scripture, that very thing is a chamber as it were. In that same chamber, there is a "small", i e. a tiny, or one who has manifested himself in a subtle form in accordance with the wish of his own devotees who are devoted to none else, 'ether', i.e one who is pervasive by nature. In that heart-lotus, the small Brahman who is denoted by the term 'ether' 'should be searched for', i e. should be discriminated as different from the enquirer, as well as from the body; and 'should be enquired into', i.e. should be meditated on repeatedly through the 'hearing' of the Vedānta. Here a doubt arises, viz whether by the term 'small ether' the elemental ether is to be understood, or the Highest Self. If it be suggested: The elemental ether, because the term 'ether' is well- known to denote the elemental ether, and because the term 'small' too, as implying a subtle object, may be applied to it It cannot be said that in the text: 'As large is this ether, so large is the ether within the heart' (Chānd. 8.1.3), one and the same thing (viz. the ether) cannot reasonably be both the object compared and the object (upa- meya and upamāna) with which it is,—because it can appropriately be so on the ground of the distinction of the external and the internal.¹ Or, let the embodied soul, like the point of a spoke only, be the small ether, because it, too, is known from the passage: 'Now this serenity (i.e. serene being) having arisen from this body' (Chānd. 8 3.4). Being atomic by nature, it can be fittingly termed 'small', and, being undefiled by the body, the sense-organs and the rest, it can be fittingly compared to the ether ²— We reply. "The small", i.e. the small ether, is none but the Highest Self. Why? "On account of what follows", i.e. on account of the reasons contained in the concluding text, 1.e. on account of the peculiar qualities of the Highest Self, viz. 'being comparable to the ether', 'being the support of all worlds, beginning with the earth', 'being the soul', 'being free from sins'—and the rest. Thus, in the passage: 'As large is this ether, so large is that ether within the ¹ That is, as the external ether it is the upamāna, as the internal ether the upameya Hence no contradiction is involved ² That is, as the ether remains aloof from the impurities of the world, though connected with it, so the soul remains aloof from the impurities of the body and the rest, though connected with them. Hence the latter may be compared with the former.

[sū. 1. 3. 15. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 165 heart’ (Chānd. 8.1.3) the small ether, i.e. the Supreme Being alone, is compared to the well-known ether, since when two different things can be reasonably held to be the object with which the thing is com- pared and the object compared, it is unreasonable to suppose one and the same thing to be both (viz. upamāna and upameya). ‘Being the supporter of all effects’ too, mentioned in the passage: ‘In it both the heaven and the earth are contained’ (Chānd. 8.1.3), fits in on the part of the Highest Self alone. The attributes like ‘being the soul’, ‘being free from sins’ and the rest, mentioned in the passage: ‘This soul is free from sins, ageless, deathless, sorrowless, without hunger, without thirst, possessed of true desires, possessed of true resolves’ (Chānd. 8.1.5), fit in only if the Highest Self be understood. Moreover, after having designated the non-permanency of the fruits of works and their incapacity of knowing Him in the passage ‘As here the world won by work perishes, so hereafter the world won by merit perishes’ (Chānd. 8.1.6), Scripture concludes: ‘Now, those who depart, having known the soul here and those true desires, come to have free movement in all the worlds’ (Chānd. 8.1.6). That is, those worshippers who ‘depart’ to the other world, ‘having known’, i.e. having realized ‘the soul’, i.e. the Supreme Lord called ‘the small’, and ‘those’, i.e. His qualities, come to have free movement in all the worlds. Accordingly, the small ether is the Highest Self, since then alone free movement is explicable on the part of those who know the nature and qualities of the ‘small one’. SŪTRA 15 “ON ACCOUNT OF GOING AND OF WORD, FOR THUS IT IS SEEN, THERE IS A MARK AS WELL.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The “going” is mentioned in the text: ‘All beings are going day by day’ (Chānd. 8.3.2 ¹), and the “word” is ‘The world of Brahman’ (Chānd. 8.3.2 ²),—on account of these two, the ‘small one’ is ascer- tained to be the Supreme Being. The daily going is “seen thus” in another scriptural text too, viz.: ‘“Then, my dear, he comes to be

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Op. cit.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 15. 166 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5 ] united with the Existent"' (Chānd. 6 8.1 ¹) If the karmadhāraya compound be understood,² then Brahman alone is 'the mark', i.e. the primary meaning of the word ('Brahma-loka') "as well". Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason too, says the author, the small ether is the Highest Self. The subsequent reasons are being amplified now. In the text about the small-ether, viz : 'Just as those who do not know the place move again and again over a hidden treasure of gold, but do not find it, so these beings are going day by day to that world of Brahman but do not find it, for they are carried away by untruth' (Chānd. 8.3.2), the phrase 'are going day by day' states the "going": and the "word" is: 'this world of Brahman', (Brahma-loka)—on account of these two, it is known that the small ether is the Highest Self. The sense is that because of the going of the individual souls, indicated by the term 'beings', to Brahman daily during deep sleep when all the sense-organs are dissolved; and because of the word 'world of Brahman', the small ether is ascertained to be none but the Highest Self, as the individual soul is one who approaches (and hence cannot be the goal approached), and as going is not appropriate on the part of the elemental ether. "For thus it is seen", i.e. the going of all beings to the Highest Self alone day by day during the state of deep sleep, as well as their return therefrom, are found, in the very same manner, in other passages too, viz.. "'So exactly, my dear, all these beings, being united with the Existent, do not know, we have become united with the Existent"' (Chānd. 6 9.2), "'Having come back from the Exis- tent, they do not know: We have come back from the Existent'" (Chānd. 6.10.1). In the very same manner, the term 'world of Brah- man', too, is found applied to the Highest Self, as in the passage: "'This is the world of Brahman, O king," said he' (Bṛh. 4 3.32) The phrase 'that' (Chānd. 8.3 2) indicates the going of all beings there (viz. to Brahman). That is, the term 'world of Brahma' (Brahma-loka),—stated to be in apposition with the word 'that' which denotes the 'small one', and explained as a karmadhāraya compound thus: 'the world which is Brahman',—is "a mark", i.e. a convincing proof, that the small ether is the Highest Brahman.

¹ Op. cit. ² See below V.K.

[SŪ. 1 3. 16 ADH 5 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 167 SŪTRA 16 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPORTING (THE LORD IS THE SMALL ETHER), BECAUSE THIS GREATNESS IS OBSERVED IN HIM (FROM ANOTHER SCRIPTURAL PASSAGE)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The holding apart, mentioned in the passage 'He is the bridge, a limitary support of these worlds' (Chānd 8.4.1 ¹), fits in if the small ether be the Highest Self, because "this greatness is observed" "in him', i e. in the Highest Self alone who is called 'a support' ² on the authority of another scriptural passage, viz : 'At the command of this Imperishable, Gārgī, the sun and the moon stand, held apart' (Bṛh 3 8.9 ³) Vedānta-kaustubha On account of the following reason, viz. • "On account of support- ing", by the word 'small ether', the Highest Self alone is to be under- stood here. Compare 'Now, he who is the soul is the bridge, a limitary support for keeping these worlds apart' (Chānd 8.4.1) The sense is: (The soul is) 'a bridge',—or, the cause of the non-inter- mixture,—and a 'limitary support',—or that which separates,—'for keeping apart'—i e for preventing the intermixture or splitting asunder 'of these worlds', or of the worlds separated from one another as relating to the soul (i e. internal), and as relating to the gods (i e external) The sense is that as "this greatness", viz. supporting, "is observed" in the Highest Self in another scriptural passage, so here, too, the small ether, the limitary support of all the worlds, is known to be the Highest Self. The other scriptural passage is to the effect . 'At the command of this Imperishable, Gārgī, the sun and the moon stand held apart' (Bṛh. 3.8.9). Similarly, there is a passage : 'He is the Lord of all, he is the Lord of the worlds, he is the bridge, the limitary support for keeping these worlds apart' (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ⁴). ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B ² CSS. ed. slightly different, p. 14, viz . 'Asya ca mahimno dhṛtyā- khyasya . . .' ³ Ś, R, Bh. ⁴ Correct quotation: 'Esa sarveśvara esa bhūtādhipatir esa bhūta-pālaḥ esa setuḥ . . .' Vide Bṛh. 4.4.22, p. 246.

[SŪ. 1 3. 17. 168 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 5.] COMPARISON Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva This is sūtra 15 in the commentaries of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Resulting meaning same, although the meaning of words different, viz.: ‘asya’ means ‘of the Lord’ and ‘asmin’ means in the small ether. Hence the sūtra ‘Because supporting, which is a greatness of him (viz the Lord), is observed in it (viz. in the small ether)’ ¹ SŪTRA 17 “AND BECAUSE IT IS WELL-KNOWN.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And because the word ‘ether’ is well-known to be denoting the Highest Self as well,—as in the passages: ‘The ether, verily, is the revealer of name and form’ (Chānd 8 14.1 ²), ‘All these beings, forsooth, arise from the ether alone’ (Chānd. 1.9 1 ³),—the small ether is none but the Highest Self Vedānta-kaustubha Again, the small ether should be understood to be none but the Highest Self Why? Because the word ‘ether’ is well-known to be denoting the Highest Self as well. Where? In the passages: ‘The ether, verily, is the revealer of name and form’ (Chānd. 8 14.1), ‘All these beings, forsooth, arise from the ether alone’ (Chānd 1.9.1). COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different, viz. : ‘Because (the Lord) is celebrated (in other Upaniṣads, viz. Mahopaniṣad, Kaivalya-upaniṣad and the rest), to be an object to be worshipped as abiding in the small lotus, (the small ether is the Lord)’ ⁴. ¹ Śrī. B. 1.3.15, pp. 308-9, Part 1 ŚK. B. 1.3 15, pp 437-8, Part 5; B.B. 1 3.16 ² Ś. ³ Ś, R, Bh. ⁴ ŚK., 1.3 16, p 438, Part 5.

[sū. 1. 3. 18-19. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 169 SŪTRA 18 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF A REFERENCE TO THE OTHER, (VIZ. THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL), HE (IS THE SMALL ETHER), (WE REPLY:) NO, BECAUSE OF IMPOSSIBILITY." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that "on account of a reference" to the individual soul as well in the middle of the text about the 'small one', viz. in the passage: 'This serene being having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form. This is the soul, said he' (Chānd. 8.3 4¹), let the individual soul be the 'small one',— (We reply) 'no', "because of the impossibility" of the qualities of freedom from sins and the rest,² on the part of the individual soul Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected that "on account of a reference" to the individual soul by the term 'serene being' in the middle of the text about the small ether, viz. in the passage: 'This serene being, having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form. This is the soul, said he. This is immortal, fearless' (Chānd 8.3.4), let "him" alone be the small ether,— (We reply·) 'No'. Why? "Because of impossibility", i.e. because the above-mentioned qualities of freedom from sins and the rest are impossible on the part of the individual soul. SŪTRA 19 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT FROM WHAT IS SUBSEQUENT, (THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL MAY BE MEANT HERE), (WE REPLY·) BUT (THAT SUBSEQUENT PASSAGE REFERS TO THE SOUL SO FAR ONLY) IT HAS ITS REAL NATURE MANIFEST." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that "from what is subsequent", i.e. from Prajāpati's statement referring to the individual soul, the eight-fold ¹ S, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Vide Chānd 8.1 5.

[Sū. 1. 3. 19. 170 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] qualties of freedom from sins and the rest are known to belong to the individual soul as well, hence let it alone be the small ether,— We reply: The Highest Self, endowed with the above-mentioned qualities and having His real nature ever manifest, is the ‘small one’; but not the individual soul, having its real nature manifest,¹ (not always, but only during release) Vedānta-kaustubha Here the word ‘small’ is to be supplied from the main aphorism,² and the words ‘he, no’ from the preceding one.³ If it be objected: This is impossible. “From what is subsequent” to the doctrine of the ‘small’, i.e. from the statement of Prajāpati, the individual soul should be known as endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest. Hence, here too let it alone be the ‘small one’, endowed with the qualities of freedom from sins and the rest,— (We reply) “No”. There, viz. in the passage: ‘Having attained the form of Highest light, it is completed in its own form’ (Chānd. 8.3.4), the individual soul which has its real nature manifest, is intended to be designated. The word “but” (in the sūtra) clearly indicates the great difference between that which has its real nature manifest and the ‘small one’ the real nature of which is ever unveiled and which is ever beyond the conventional distinctions of bondage and release. Thus the statement of Prajāpati (Chānd 8.7 1) teaches the individual soul as possessing the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest,—the soul which has its real attributes concealed by the states of waking and the rest, rooted on karmas, meritorious or non- meritorious, and existent from all eternity; and which has its real nature manifest through the attainment of the Highest Self, caused by meditation on Him. But the text about the ‘small one’ (Chānd. 8.1.5) teaches the Highest Self as possessing the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest,—the Self who has His nature and attributes ever manifest, and who is denoted by the term ‘small ether’.³ ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ The contrast is between the nityāvirbhūta-svarūpa Paramātman and the āvirbhūta-svarūpa jīvātman. See V. K. below. ² Viz. Br. Sū. 1.3.14 ³ Viz. Br. Sū. 1.3.18 ³ That is, the Highest Self is always possessed of the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, while the individual soul is not always possessed of them, but only when its real nature comes to be manifested. Hence the ‘small one’, which is always possessed of these attributes cannot be the individual soul.

{SŪ. 1. 3. 19. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 171 The meaning of the scriptural text (Chānd. 8 3.4) is as follows. Just as the eye,—enveloped in deep darkness and hence unable to perform its own special function of making known objects like clothes, ornaments and the rest,—having attained the ever-unenveloped sun, is completed in its own form and able to perform its own special function of manifesting its own objects,—so the individual soul, ‘having attained’, i.e having completely attained, near itself, the ‘highest’, i.e. the Being different from the sentient individual soul and the non-sentient, ‘light’, i e. the real nature of the Whole the revealer of all, is ‘completed’ in its real nature as knowledge, different from the body, the sense-organs and the rest and endowed with its own bliss,—as such it is said to have its real nature manifest (āvir- bhūta-svarūpa) The word ‘āvirbhūta-svarūpa’ is to be explained as ‘one whose real nature has become manifest’. Moreover, as ‘being a bridge’, ‘being the limitary support of all worlds’, and ‘being the controller of the sentient and the non-sentient’ are not possible even on the part of the individual soul which has its real nature manifest, so the small ether can never be supposed to be the individual soul. In the doctrine of the ‘small’ (Chānd 8.1 5), the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, which are special to one who has this real nature ever manifest, are mentioned; while in the doctrine taught by Prajāpati (Chānd. 8 7.1), only those that are special to that which has its nature manifest (and not ever manifest) Hence, the reason ‘because of impossibility’ (mentioned in Br. Sū. 1 3 18) remains in force. COMPARISON Śaṃkara Interpretation different, viz.: ‘If it be said . . . , (then we reply) No, but (the passage in question refers to the soul only so far) as its real nature has become manifest (i.e. so far it has become Brahman) ¹ Thus, according to Śaṃkara, the statement of Prajāpati (Chānd. 8 7.1) does not really refer to the individual soul, but to Brahman. According to Nimbārka, however, as we have seen, it refers to the freed soul, which too is different from Brahman ¹ Ś.B. 1 3.19, pp. 333 et seq.