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

[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.

[sū 1. 3. 20. 172 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5 ] Bhāskara He, too, points out that the statement of Prajāpati does not refer to the individual soul as such, but to the soul which has become the Supreme Soul in nature ¹ SŪTRA 20 “AND THE REFERENCE HAS A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “The reference” to the individual soul is for showing that the Supreme Soul is the cause of the manifestation of the real nature of the individual soul. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz : If the small ether be the Supreme Soul having His real nature ever-manifest, then the reference to the indivi- dual soul in the text about the ‘small one’, viz. in the passage: ‘Now, this serene being, having arisen from this body’ (Chānd 8.3.4), must have a purport,—the author replies here. The word “and” (in the sūtra) implies possibility. Just as on attaining the sun, the eye, overpowered so long by darkness, is com- pleted in its real form, so on attaining the highest light, i.e. the small ether, the individual soul, having so long its real nature and qualities like freedom from sins and the rest hidden by the beginningless māyā, is completed in its own special form. Thus, the reference to the individual soul in the statement of Prajāpati is simply for showing that the small ether is the cause of the manifestation of the real form of the individual soul, and not for proving that the small ether is the individual soul itself. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz. . ‘And the reference (to the individual soul) has a different purpose (viz. the determining of the nature of Brahman)’ ². According to Nimbārka, however, as we have seen, ¹ Bh B. 1 3 19, p 58. ² Ś.B 1.3 20, p. 339; Bh B 1.3.20, p 58

[SŪ 1 3. 21-22. ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 173 the purpose is to show that Brahman is the cause of the manifestation of the real nature of the soul. SŪTRA 21 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL DECLARATION OF WHAT IS SMALL (THE LORD IS NOT THE SMALL ETHER), (WE REPLY,) THAT HAS BEEN SAID." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "If it be objected that on account of the scriptural declaration of what is small", the all-pervasive Being cannot be understood here,— (we reply·) the answer to this has already been given ¹ Vedānta-kaustubha "If it be objected that on account of the scriptural declaration of what is small" in the passage: 'Small is the ether within it' (Chānd. 8 1.1), let the individual soul alone, which is atomic in size, be the 'small one',— (We reply·) The answer to this has been given under the aphorism 'Because (Brahman) is to be conceived thus, as in the case of the ether' (Br Sū. 1.2.7). SŪTRA 22 "AND BECAUSE OF THE IMITATION OF THAT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And because of the imitation" "of that", i.e of that which has its real nature ever manifest, in accordance with the passage. 'He alone shining, everything shines' (Kaṭha 5.15; Muṇḍ. 2.2.10 ; Śvet. 6.14 ²), the individual soul, the imitator, cannot be the 'small one', having its real nature ever-manifest. Vedānta-kaustubha The author says that for this reason, too, the individual soul is not the small ether. ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 1.2.7. ² Ś, Bh.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 23. 174 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.] Because of the imitation “of that”, i.e. of the small ether having the eight-fold attributes ever manifest, by that which has its attributes of freedom from sins and the rest manifest (and not ever manifest) the ‘small one’ is none but the Highest Self Just as in the Muṇḍaka, declaring the imitation of the Lord by all in the passage: ‘He alone shining, everything shines’ (Muṇḍ 2.2.10); and declaring further that everything is to be manifested by the Lord in the passage ‘Through his light all this shines’ (Muṇḍ 2.2.10), all things which are imitators and objects to be manifested cannot be the object which is imitated and the object which manifests,—so the individual soul, mentioned by Prajāpati, and an imitator, cannot be Brahman, denoted by the term ‘small’, and object to be imitated. COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz. according to them, the sūtras 22-23 form a new adhikaraṇa, designating that the passage Muṇḍaka 2 2.10 refers not to a luminous substance, but to the Supreme Soul.¹ But according to Nimbārka, they form parts of the preceding adhikaraṇa, setting forth additional arguments as to why the ‘small ether’ is none but the Supreme Soul. Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva According to all, the word ‘anukṛteḥ’ means ‘because of simi- larity’. That is, the individual soul is not the ‘small one’ or Brahman, because it is only similar to Him.² SŪTRA 23 “MOREOVER (THIS IS) DECLARED BY SMṚTI.” ³ Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Also Smṛti declares. ‘They have come to attain equality of attributes with me’ (Gītā 14.2 ⁴). ¹ Ś.B. 1.3.22, pp. 340 ff., Bh B. 1.3.22, pp 58 et seq. ² Śrī. B. 1.3.21, p. 313, Part 1, ‘Tad-anukāras tat-sāmyam’. ŚK. B. 1.3.21, pp. 444-5, Part 5, G B 1.3.22 ³ C.S S. ed., p 15, reads ‘Api smaryyate’ 4 R, B.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 24. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 175 Vedānta-kaustubha Smṛti declares the equality of the individual soul, freed from all bondage, with the Supreme Soul, in the passage: 'They have come to attain equality of attributes with me' (Gītā 14 2). Hence, it is established that the small ether is none but the Supreme Soul. Here ends the section entitled 'The small' (5) COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Reading different, viz. 'Api ca smaryyate' Interpretation different, viz—'Further, Smṛti (viz. Gītā 15 12, etc.) declares (the Soul to be the cause of the manifestation of all)' ¹ Rāmānuja and Baladeva Reading 'Api smaryyate'. ² Śrīkaṇṭha Reading 'Api ca smaryyate', i.e. 'Moreover Smṛti declares (that the Lord is to be meditated on as abiding in the heart-lotus ³)'. Adhikaraṇa 6. The section entitled 'What is measured'. (Sūtras 24-25) SŪTRA 24 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEXT ONLY, WHAT IS MEASURED (IS THE LORD)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "What is measured", i e what is of the size of a thumb, is none but the Highest Person, "on account of the text": 'The Lord of past and future' (Kaṭha 4.13 ⁴). ¹ Ś, B 1.3.23, p. 343; Bh B. 1 3.23, p. 59. ² Śrī. B. 1.3.23, p. 313, Part 1, G.B. 1 3 23. ³ ŚK B 1.3 23, p 445, Part 5 ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B

[SŪ. 1. 3. 24. 176 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.] Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, it has been establshed that Brahman is to be meditated on as the 'small one' Now, the author points out that Brahman is to be meditated on as of the size of merely a thumb. In the Katha-valli, we read: 'The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, dwells in the midst of the soul' (Katha 4.12), again 'The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, smokeless like light' (Katha 4.13); again: 'The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, the inner soul, is ever seated in the heart of beings' (Katha 6.17) Here, a doubt arises as to whether the Person of the size of merely a thumb is the individual soul or the Highest Person The prima facie view is as follows The Person of the size of merely a thumb is the individual soul in accordance with the Śvetāśvatara-text, viz. 'The lord of the vital-breaths, who is of the size of merely a thumb and of a form like the sun, moves about through his own works' (Śvet. 5 7d–8a); as well as in accordance with the Smṛti passage, viz . 'Then Yama drew forth, by force, from the body of Satyavāna, the person, of the size of merely a thumb, tied to the noose and brought under his control' (Mahā. 3.16763 ¹). With regard to this, we reply "What is measured", i.e. the Person of the size of merely a thumb, mentioned in the Kaṭha-valli, is none but the Supreme Soul. Why? "On account of the text", i.e. on account of the text 'The lord of past and future' (Katha 4.13). The sense is this. Although 'being of the size of merely a thumb', mentioned in the above Scripture and Smṛti texts, is here perceived to be a characteristic mark of the individual soul, yet that mark is set aside,²—this is the sense. If it be objected: It being impossible for the individual soul, which is by nature atomic in size, to be of the size of a thumb, and there being the mark: 'tied to the noose', the individual soul can be of the size of merely a thumb only if its subtle body be meant.³ But it

¹ P. 806, line 5, vol. 1. ² That is, although in the above scriptural and Smṛti texts, the individual soul has been designated as of the size of a thumb, yet in other numerous passages, it is designated as of the size of an atom merely Hence, the above description is set aside. ³ That is, since the individual soul cannot be of the size of a thumb, being declared to be atomic in size, the designation of it as of the size of a thumb merely means that its subtle body is so, and not that it itself is so.

[SŪ 1. 3. 25. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 177 is impossible for Brahman, the topic of discussion, to be of the size of merely a thumb, even though repeatedly taught by Scripture,— (We reply·) No, it being possible for Brahman to be so, in accord- ance with the wish of His devotees, and on account of His connection with place (viz. the heart) With regard to this point, a preceding aphorism (viz Br. Sū 1.2.7) may be consulted. Moreover, on account also of a text referring to the Person of the size of merely a thumb, viz. : ‘Let one draw him forth from his own body with firmness, as a pith from a reed Let one know him’ (Kaṭha 6 17), the Supreme Soul alone is of the size of merely a thumb. Thus, the meaning of the text is as follows The individual soul, entitled to know Brahman, the agent, endowed with a right discrimination between the soul and the non-soul,—implied by the phrase ‘from his own body’,—‘should draw forth’, i.e. should lift up or put outside,—through intense prayer again,—‘him’, ie the Person of the size of a thumb, the object and known first through meditation to be within the heart, ‘from his own body’, i e from the body known as his own, ‘as the pith from a reed’; then ‘he should know him with firmness’. If this be so, the Person of the size of merely a thumb, the object to be worshipped, must be other than the worshipper himself SŪTRA 25 “BUT (THE LORD IS SAID TO BE OF THE SIZE OF MERELY A THUMB) IN REFERENCE TO THE HEART (OF MEN), BECAUSE MEN (ALONE) ARE ENTITLED (TO SCRIPTURE)” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The Lord can very well be of the size of merely a thumb, “in reference to the heart” of the worshippers. To the objection, viz The size of the heart in animals being not fixed, how can Brahman be of the size of a thumb in reference to the heart !—the author replies : “Because men (alone) are entitled (to Scripture)”. Vedānta-kaustubha The author is justifying the contention that Brahman can be of the size of merely a thumb. 12

[sū. 1. 3. 25. 178 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6 ] Even an all-pervasive Being can be of the size of merely a thumb, "with reference to the heart", i.e. with reference to the heart, or the heart-lotus which is of the size of merely a thumb, of His own devotees, devoted to Him alone and to none else. The sense is that this designation is indeed proper like the designation of the Lord as 'one who makes three strides' (Trivikrama), in reference to the three worlds.¹ Or else, (an alternative explanation of the word "hṛdyapekṣa- yā"). As from the word "heart" ("hṛd") alone the size of that which is within it (viz the Lord) is known, the words "in reference to" ("apekṣayā") are to be understood as: 'in reference to the worshippers', i.e in accordance with their wish.² To the objection, viz. As the size of the heart differs in accordance with the difference of living creatures, the text about (the Person of the size of merely) a thumb cannot be explained in reference to the heart,—we reply: "Because men (alone) are entitled" to Scripture. This is the meaning:³ 'That to which men are entitled' (make 'manuṣyādhikāra'), 'the state of that' (make 'manuṣyādhikāratva'), on account of that (make 'manuṣyādhikāratvāt'). The meaning of the scriptural text concerning (the Person of the size of merely) a thumb is explicable in reference to the heart of men. Although Scripture is of a universal application,⁴ yet as men alone can be worshippers and seekers, they alone are entitled to it. Hence, no contradiction arises here even if the hearts of elephants and lice be not of the size of merely a thumb, as they are not entitled to works enjoined in Scrip- ture and Smṛti, as established in the sixth chapter, determining the conditions of being entitled to sacrifices and so on.⁵ Thus, it is ¹ 'Trivikrama' is an epithet of Viṣṇu, who paced the three worlds in three steps in His Vāmana or Dwarf incarnation. The sense is, that just as the all- pervading Lord is said to have three strides only, so He may be said to be of the size of a thumb only. ² I.e. the Lord manifests Himself as of the size of a thumb to please his devotees. ³ The compound 'manuṣyādhikāratvāt' is to be explained as follows. ⁴ That is, scriptural mandates are to be followed by all ⁵ Vide Pū. Mī. Sū. 6.1.4-5, pp 504-7, Part 1.