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

[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.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 26. ADH 7 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 179 established that the Supreme Soul alone is the Person of the size of merely a thumb. Here ends the section entitled 'What is measured' ¹ (3). Adhikaraṇa 7. The section entitled 'The deity'. (Sūtras 26-30) SŪTRA 26 "EVEN THOSE WHO ARE ABOVE THEM (I.E. MEN) (ARE ENTITLED TO THE WORSHIP OF BRAHMAN), (SO) BĀDARĀYAṆA (HOLDS), BECAUSE OF POSSIBILITY " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The gods and the rest also, who are above men, are entitled to such a worship of Brahman,—so thinks the reverend " Bādarāyaṇa." Vedānta-kaustubha It has been said in the last section that the text about the Person of the size of merely a thumb is explicable in reference to the heart of men, as men are entitled to Scripture. Now, incidentally, the question as to whether or not gods too are entitled to the worship of Brahman is being considered. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, we read 'Whoever among the gods was awakened to this, he alone became that, likewise among the sages' (Bṛh 1.4 10). (The sense is.) Whoever among the gods, and similarly among the sages 'was awakened', i.e. directly perceived Brahman, 'he alone' attained the nature of Brahman. Here, on the doubt, viz. whether or not the gods are entitled to the worship of Brahman, which is a means to attaining His nature, if the suggestion be: As men are entitled to Scripture; and as Indra and the rest are incapable of practising meditation,—seeing that they, whose bodies consist of sacred texts, are not possessed of physical bodies,²—the worship of Brahman is not possible on the part of the gods,—we reply· Such a worship of Brahman is possible on the part of gods as well, who are "above" men,—so the reverend "Bādarāyaṇa" thinks Why? 1 The section entitled 'What is measured' is resumed in sūtra 1.3.40. 2 That is, in order that one might carry on meditation, one must have a physical body, which a god lacks. Hence a god cannot practise meditation.

[Sū. 1. 3. 26 180 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7 ] "On account of possibility," i e because the worship and the like of Brahman, leading to salvation which is characterized by the attainment of Brahman and is preceded by the cessation of all retributive experience due to their own works, is possible on their part as well. Thus, although they have supermundane and celestial enjoyment, yet since such an enjoyment is subject to the faults of non-permanency, surpassability and the rest, its cessation, one day or other, is possible, hence, a desire for salvation, too, is possible on their part, by reason of their learning the unsurpassability, supreme blissfulness and perma- nency of the attainment of the nature of Brahman; and finally through this desire for salvation, a worship of Brahman, too, is possible on their part ¹ there being proofs establishing their right to the worship of Brahman, viz the texts: 'For one hundred and one years, forsooth Indra dwelt with Prajāpati, practising chastity' (Chānd. 8 11.3), 'Verily, Bhṛgu, the son of Varuṇa, approached his father Varuṇa, (with the request) "Sir, teach me Brahman "' (Tait. 3 1 1) and so on. Similarly, corporality, too, is possible on their part in accordance with text about the evolution of name and form,² as well as in accord- ance with sacred formulæ, explanatory and glorificatory passages and tradition ³ Thus it is declared by Scripture: 'When about to say "vasat", he should meditate on that deity for whom the offering is taken' (Ait. Br. 11.8 ⁴). Here, no meaning of the text being possible unless the god referred to, be possessed of a body,⁵ the god must be understood to have a body In tradition too, the sun, the moon, Vasu and the rest are well-known to have bodies The sons of Kuntī were born from gods like Dharma and the rest, possessed of bodies.⁶ ¹ That is, just as in the case of a man, the non-permanency of the earthly enjoyment leads him to seek for salvation, which yields a permanent fruit, and that, again, leads him to worship the Lord as a means thereto, so exactly the non-permanency of the heavenly enjoyment leads a god to seek for salvation, which leads him to worship the Lord. ² Vide Chānd. 6.3.2-4. ³ Mantras, artha-vāda and itihāsa. ⁴ Ānandāśrama ed., p. 305. These are mantra and artha-vāda. ⁵ Because, we cannot meditate on the deity, unless he possesses a body. To meditate is to meditate on a certain definite form Cf. Śrī. B 1 3 25. 'Na hi nirviśeṣa-devatā dhiyaṃ adhirohati.' ⁶ Kuntī, the wife of Pāṇḍu, had, with his approval, three sons, Yudhiṣṭhira, Bhīma and Arjuna, by the three deities, Dharma, Vāyu and Indra respectively. Vide Mahā. 1 4760 et seq. (chap. 123), pp. 174 et seq., vol. 1.

[sū. 1. 3. 27. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 181 In the Purāṇas, too, there is a multitude of legends of various kinds about them, possessing bodies. The verses from those chapters are not quoted here for fear of increasing the bulk of the book. SŪTRA 27 “ IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (IF THE GODS BE POSSESSED OF BODIES) A CONTRADICTION WITH REGARD TO WORKS (WILL RESULT), (WE REPLY :) NO, BECAUSE OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSUMPTION OF MANY (BODIES BY THE GODS, ETC.) ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected. Since the worship of Brahman is not possible without a body, their corporality must surely be admitted But it that be so, it will give rise to a “ contradiction with regard to works ”,— (We reply :) “ no ” such objection can arise. Why? “ Because of the observation of the assumption ” simultaneously of many bodies even by one and the same deity. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected· Although the corporality of the gods, as of us, is an inevitable conclusion, as the activities in connection with the repeated practice of ‘hearing’, ‘thinking’ and ‘meditating’ are possible only on the part of one who is endowed with a body, sense-organs and mind, and as in that way alone it is possible for them to be the bene- factors of sacrifices, through their actual presence, like sacrificing priests and the rest,¹—yet if they be possessed of bodies, there will be “ a contradiction with regard to works ”, viz. sacrifices and the rest, since the simultaneous presence of one body (i.e. of one god) in many sacrifices is impossible,²— (We reply :) “ No ”. Why? “ Because of the observation of many worships ” ³ “ Many ”, i.e. of various forms, “ worship ”, “ on account ¹ That is, if gods be possessed of bodies, then they may themselves be present at sacrifices, like the priests, and conduce to their proper performance, etc. ² That is, one and the same god is simultaneously invoked in many sacrifices, but evidently, he cannot be simultaneously present in many places ³ The compound ‘aneka-pratipatter darśanāt’ is explained as follows.

[SŪ. 1. 3 27. 182 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] of the observation of that". Thus, just as one and the same teacher is found to be saluted simultaneously by many saluting dis- ciples, just as one and the same sun is found to be worshipped simul- taneously by many worshipping men, so there is no inconsistency in supposing that different sacrificers offer their own objects to one and the same corporal deity who abides in his own place. Hence no harm is done to sacrifices Or else, there may be another construction of the phrase "aneka- pratipatter darsanāt". If it be objected that there will be "a con- tradiction with regard to works" in the stated way,—(we reply.) "No" Why? "On account of the assumption of many", i.e. on account of the assumption of many forms, or on account of the attainment of many bodies, by one and the same person who is perfected by Yoga Why? "Because of the observation" of it in Scripture. Thus, in the Moksa-dharma,¹ a question being put forth concerning the Sāṁkhya and the Yoga thus, " 'Reverend father, it behoves you to tell me in particular about the Sāṁkhya and the Yoga. Everything, O knower of sacred duties, is known to you, O best among the Kurus"!' (Mahā. 12 11037 ²), the text, having set forth an eulogy of the Sāṁkhya and the Yoga, goes on · ' "Those who are endowed with the power of the Yoga and are self-controlled and majestic, enter, O Pārtha, through Yoga into Prajāpatis, sages, gods and the great elements. Neither Yama, nor the angry Antaka,³ nor the supremely mighty Mrtyu lords it, O king, over the Yoga of unmeasured might A yogin, O mightiest of the Bhāratas, can, by reason of attaining strength,⁴ create many bodies for himself, and move about the world by them all By some he may attain (i e enjoy) objects, by others, he may practise a severe penance, and he may again contract them, as the sun does the multitude of its rays' (Mahā. 12.11060–64 ⁵). ¹ Name of a section of the twelfth book of the Mahābhārata, from chap. 174 to the end ² P. 751, line 27, vol. 3. ³ Name of Yama, the god of Death. ⁴ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason. ⁵ P 755, lines 20-23, vol. 3.

[sū. 1. 3. 28 ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 183 SŪTRA 28 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (A CONTRADICTION WILL RESULT) WITH REGARD TO WORD, (WE REPLY :) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN (OF EVERYTHING) FROM IT, ON ACCOUNT OF PERCEPTION (I.E. SCRIPTURE) AND INFERENCE (I E SMṚTI).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that if the corporality of the gods be admitted, a contradiction will result with regard to the Vedic words denoting them, as these words will become meaningless prior to the origin of the objects (viz. the gods) denoted by them and subsequent to their destruction,— (We reply:) No such contradiction results, “on account of the origin” of the objects (viz. the gods and the rest) “from it”, i.e. from the words alone, denoting eternal prototypes or forms, and serving as reminders to the thought of Prajāpati, in accordance with the following scriptural and Smṛti texts. ‘He evolved name and form by means of the Veda’ (Tait. Br. 2.6 2 3 ¹), ‘A celestial word, without beginning and end, eternal, and composed of the Vedas was emitted by the self-born in the beginning, whence proceeded all activities’ (Mahā 12.8534 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha Here, the word ‘contradiction’ is to be supplied from the preced- ing aphorism. If it be objected. Very well, there may not be any contradiction with regard to works if the gods be possessed of bodies, still there may be contradiction “with regard to the words” denoting gods and the rest, i e with regard to the Vedic forms. That is, on account of the non-eternity of the bodies of the gods,—they being due to karmas—as well as on account of the eternity of the Vedic texts, the eternal relation between a word and its meaning will be ¹ P. 275, line 9, vol. 2. Reading ‘ . . . . rūpe . . . . ’. R, ŚK. ² P. 666, line 22, vol. 3. Ś, R, Bh. Reading: ‘Anādi-nidhanā vidyā . .’ Vaṅgavāsī ed. reads: ‘Anādi- nidhanā vidyā . . . Ādau deva-mayī vidyā .’ P. 1635, vol. 2. Saṁkara, Rāmānuja and Bhāskara too read ‘Anādi-nidhanā nityā . . .’ like Nimbārka.

[SŪ. 1. 3 28. 184 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 7.] impossible, and hence a contradiction will result between the object which is limited in time and the word which is true for all times. If it be said that owing to the force of the word, the object too is eternal,—then a contradiction will result with regard to the texts which prove its non-eternity. If it be said that for the sake of the object, the word is non-eternal,—then there will arise a contradiction with regard to the texts which prove its eternity — (We reply·) “No”. There is no contradiction with regard to the word as well. Why? “On account of the origin from it”, i e. on account of the origin, or the rise, of the gods and the rest from this, i e from the Vedic words, denoting the eternal prototypes of gods, etc. and serving as a reminder to the thought of the creator regarding the forms of gods, etc to be created at the time of each particular creation. Thus, when a certain great personality, who has accumulated a mass of merit and desires to become Prajāpati, comes to attain lordship through the grace of the Lord, he is called ‘Prajāpati’. At the time of creation when individuals like the former gods and the rest are no more, Prajāpati, having learnt the Veda in a manner to be designated hereafter,¹ and having apprehended, like a man arisen from sleep,² the particular prototypes of the gods and the rest by means of the lamp-like Veda, i.e from the Vedic words alone which denote those particular prototypes, creates the later gods, etc in accordance with those prototypes. Hence there is no room for the alleged contradiction. If it be objected, What proof is there that Prajāpati creates objects after having known their particular forms from the Vedic words?—we reply: “On account of perception and inference”. “Per- ception” means Scripture, since it is independent of any other proof. “Inference” means Smṛti, since it demonstrates the meaning of Scrip- ture,—on account of these two, i.e. on account of Scripture and Smṛti. First, the scriptural passage is the following; viz. ‘Prajāpati evolved name ³ and form the existent and the non-existent, by means of the Veda’ (Tait. Br. 2 6 2.3), likewise: ‘He uttered “bhūr”, he ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 1.3.30. ² That is, when a man arises from sleep at night he can see nothing until he lights a lamp. Similarly, at the beginning of creation, the creator knows particular objects from the lamp-like light of the Veda, i.e. knows the forms of those objects and creates them anew accordingly. ³ The text omits ‘nāma’.

[SŪ. 1 3 28. ADH 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 185 created the earth' (Tait. 2.2.4.2 ¹), 'He uttered "bhuva", he created the ether' (Tait. Br. 2.2.4 2-3 ²) and so on. The Smṛti passage is contained in the Mokṣadharma ³, and beginning: 'The sages read the Vedas day and night by penance' (Mahā. 12.8533b ⁴), continues: 'A celestial word, without beginning and end, eternal and composed of the Vedas, was omitted by the self-born in the beginning, whence proceeded all activities.⁵ The Lord created the names of the sages and the creations which are in the Vedas, as well as the various forms of beings and the procedure of acts, from the Vedic words alone in the beginning At the end of the night, the Unborn One bestowed the names of sages and the creations which are in the Vedas to others The things that are celebrated in the world, namely, difference of names, austerity, work and sacrifice'.⁶ Similarly, there are other passages, viz 'In the beginning the Supreme Lord created the names and forms of beings, as well as the procedures of actions, from the Vedic word alone' ⁷ (V.P 1.5 62). 'In the beginning, he created the names and actions of all as separate, as well as the different established orders,⁸ from the Vedic word alone' (Manu 1 21 ⁹) and so on ¹⁰ ¹ P 195, lines 7-8, vol. 2. ² Op cit, lines 9-10. ³ See footnote 1, p 182 ⁴ P. 663, line 22, vol. 3. ⁵ For correct quotation, see footnote 2, p. 183 ⁶ P. 666, lines 23–26, vol. 3. Reading. 'Nama rūpañ ca bhūtānāṃ karmaṇāñ ca pravartayan . . . śarvaryy-ante sujātānām .' Vaṅgavāsī ed reads. ' . pravartanam . . sujātānām' P 1635, vol 2. ⁷ P. 50 Variant readings. 'Devādīnāṃ cakāra sah'. ⁸ Cf. Kullūka-bhaṭṭa's Commentary on the Manu-Smṛti (p. 10): 'Pṛthak- saṃsthāś ca iti Laukikīś ca vyavasthāḥ, kulālasya ghaṭa-nirmāṇam, kuvindasya paṭa-nirmānam ityādika-vibhāgena nirmītavān.' ⁹ P. 9. ¹⁰ The sum and substance of the argument is as follows: The prima facie view is that if the gods be possessed of bodies, then, since these bodies, are non- eternal, the gods must be so But the Vedic words which denote the gods are eternal Hence there cannot be any eternal connection between the non-eternal gods and the eternal Vedic words, i e. these Vedic words cannot denote gods and the rest, and must be meaningless. The answer to this objection is as follows: The individual gods are indeed non-eternal, but this does not prove that the eternal Vedic words are meaningless, for what they denote is not the individual (vyakti) which is non-eternal, but the

[SŪ. 1. 3. 29. 186 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.] SŪTRA 29 "FOR THIS VERY REASON, THE ETERNITY (OF THE VEDAS FOLLOWS)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The creation by Prajāpati is preceded by the (Vedic) word. "For this" reason the "eternity" of the Veda is established. Vedānta-kaustubha Having apprehended the objection, viz. In spite of the eternity of the Veda,—it not being mentioned as something created,—the Vedic words, denoting the forms of gods and the rest, are concerned with non-eternal objects, and having removed the consequent false notion regarding the non-eternity of these as well,¹ the author is confirming, incidentally, the eternity of the Veda. "The eternity" of the word, i.e. of the Veda, follows "for this very reason", i.e. also because of its priority to the creation by Pra- jāpati. Words like 'Vaiśvāmitra', 'Kāṭhaka' and so on etymologically mean simply what has been uttered by them. Thus 'what has been said by Viśvāmitra is Vaiśvāmitra', 'what has been said by Kaṭha is Kāṭhaka', and so on. At the end of the universal dissolution, Prajāpati, having conceived the forms, powers and the rest of Viśvā- mitra and others from the Vedic words 'Viśvāmitra', etc. mentioned in texts like 'He chooses the maker of sacred formula', 'This is a hymn of Viśvāmitra' (Tait. Sam. 5.2.3.2) and so on, and having created them as endowed with those particular forms and those parti- cular powers, appoints them to the task of revealing those particular sacred formulæ (mantras). Thus given the powers by him, they too, having practised suitable penances, read the sacred formulæ,—which form portions of the Veda, which are eternally existent, and which were revealed by Viśvāmitra and others of former ages,—perfect in their sounds and accents without having read them or learnt them from the recitation of a teacher. type (ākṛti) which is eternal. It is in accordance with these eternal types, denoted by the eternal Vedic words, that the non-eternal individuals are created anew at the beginning of each creation. ¹ That is, since the Vedic words denote non-eternal objects, it might be thought that these words themselves are non-eternal. ² P. 24, lines 21-22, vol. 2.

[sū 1 3. 30. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 187 As such, though they are makers of the sacred formulæ, the eternity of the Veda is perfectly justifiable 1 SŪTRA 30 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF HAVING THE SAME NAME AND FORM, (THERE IS) NO CONTRADICTION EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE RECURRENCE (OF THE WORLD), ON ACCOUNT OF PERCEPTION (I E. SCRIPTURE) AND ON ACCOUNT OF SMRTI." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Thus, there is "no contradiction even with regard to the recur- rence", or the creation and destruction of the material world. Why? Because the objects which are to be created in the beginning of each age have the same names and forms as those in the past ages, "on account of perception" (i.e. scriptural text), viz 'The creator fashioned the sun and the moon as he did before' (Rg. V. 10 190 3 2), and 'on account of Smrti', viz. 'Just as the various signs of the seasons are seen to be the very same in their regular recurrence, so are the beings in the successive ages' (V P. 1 5 64 3). 1 That is, the Vedic mantras are said to be composed by different sages like Viśvāmitra and so on; and hence it may be thought that these sages being non-eternal, the mantras composed by them must also be so, i.e the Veda must be non-eternal. But the fact is that the sages are not really the composers of the mantras, which are really eternal; but when they are said to be the composers of those mantras, it is simply meant that they utter, i.e. reveal the eternally existent mantra in different ages. Thus, e g Viśvāmitra in one particular age utters a mantra which is then said to be Vaiśvāmitra. Then, in course of time, Viśvāmitra perishes, but the mantra remains intact, and in the next age, a new Viśvāmitra is deputed to utter and reveal the very same mantra and so on. Thus, the mantra itself remains unchanged from all eternity, only its revealers change from age to age Hence the Vedic mantras are really eternal and so is the Veda. 2 Pp. 143-4 Ś, Bh. ŚK, B. 3 P 50 Ś, Bh Cf. a very similar passage in Mahā 12 8550, p. 667, lines 9-10, vol. 3, which is the same as the above passage, only reads 'Tathā Brahma- harādīsu' in place of 'Tathā bhāvā yugādisu'.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 30. 188 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz : The view that Prajāpati, having known the particular forms of object by means of the Veda,—in accordance with the maxim of a person arisen from sleep,—¹ creates them as he did before, fits in the case of the periodical dissolution.² But since in the case of the total dissolution ³ there is destruction of everything, how can the priority of the Veda to creation be possible ? How can also its eternity be possible ? How can again the world be preceded by it ? The author replies here : The word "and" (in the sūtra) is meant for removing the doubt. The word "even" implies possibility. That is to say, there is no contradiction whatsoever "even with regard to the recurrence" consisting in a continuous stream of creation and dissolution of the material world, i.e. with regard to the first creation at the end a great dissolution. Why ? "On account of having the same name and form." Thus, during the total dissolution, the Lord Vāsudeva, the one mass of a multitude of attributes which are special to Him, eternal, infinite and natural, and possessing the sentient and the non-sentient as His powers, having drawn in all the effects, consisting in His own powers (śakti) of the sentient and the non-sentient, as a tortoise draws in its limbs, and having placed them in Himself in a successive order, opposed to that of creation, abides in silence, like a boy who has gathered up his toys. At that time, the Vedas, the objects denoted by them, as well as the forms of the latter, exist in Him, all blended together with Him. Thus, the entire Universe always exists in its cause, viz. Vāsudeva or Brahman, possessing the sentient and the non-sentient as His powers. There is no such thing as absolute destruction, in accordance with the scriptural text : " 'The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second ' " ((Chānd. 6.2.1). That is, 'My child !' 'this', i.e. the Universe, 'was existent alone', i.e. was non-different from its cause, 'in the beginning', ¹ See footnote 2, p. 184. ² Naimittika-pralaya. ³ Prākṛta-pralaya. Naimittika pralaya means the dissolution of the three worlds when one day of the Kāryya-brahman or Hiraṇyagarbha comes to an end; while prākṛta pralaya means the dissolution of all objects together with the Kāryya-brahman himself. Vide Ved. Pari, 7th chap. for the four kinds of pralayas: nitya, naimittika, prākṛta and ātyantika.

[sū. 1 3. 30 ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 189 i.e prior to creation; and that, viz. the cause, denoted by the term ‘existent’, is ‘one only, without a second’. He is without an equal or a superior, indicated respectively by the words ‘only’ and ‘without a second’, and He is to be known also as manifold by nature indeed, since He is the substratum of the sentient and the non-sentient which are His powers. Dissolution means the existence of the effect in the cause in a subtle form; while creation means simply the manifestation of such an effect. At the end of dissolution, the omniscient and all- knowing Lord, having wished first ‘“May I be many”’ ((Chānd. 6.2.3, Tait. 2.6.1); having then separated the mass of enjoying souls and the objects of enjoyment, so long merged in Him as His subtle powers; having created all objects from the mahat down to the four- faced Brahmā as He did before, having manifested the eternally existent Vedas, having taught them mentally to Brahmā, and having deputed him to the creation of the Universe, consisting of gods, men and the rest, as it was before, Himself exists as his (Brahmā's) inner soul, as declared by the text ‘Having created it, he entered into that very thing’ (Tait. 2 6 1). Brahmā too, who has attained lordship through His grace, having apprehended their forms from the Vedic words, creates gods and the rest. As such, there is no contradiction even with regard to the recurrence,—this is the sense. Just in this consists the non-human origin of the Veda, it having an eternally existent form like the Supreme Brahman. And its eternity means that one, having remembered a particular order of succession, through the impressions generated in his mind by his prior recitations of the Veda in a fixed order, should recite the Veda in that very order.¹ If it be asked: Whence is this known: We reply: “From percep- tion and from Smṛti”. “Perception” means that which destroys the darkness of the heart, i e. Scripture, viz. ‘He who first creates Brahmā and he who, forsooth, delivers the Vedas to him, to that Deity, who is the light of self-knowledge, I, desirous of release, take shelter’, (Śvet. 6.18), similarly: ‘The creator fashioned, as he did before, the sun and the moon, the heaven, the earth and the ether, and then the sky’ (Rg. V. 10.190.3). There is a Smṛti passage as well, viz “Then ¹ That is, the Veda is said to be apauruseya or of non-human origin, and nitya or eternal. Now, the first means that the Veda is eternally existent, and is simply revealed, and not created, at the time of each new creation. The second means that it is recited in exactly the same order of succession in different ages all throughout.

[sū. 1. 3. 31. 190 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 8] a lotus sprang forth from the navel of the sleeping Deity. In that lotus, O holy one, Brahmā was born, fully versed in the Vedas and their parts. He was told by Him "Create beings, O highly learned one"!' 'Just as the various signs of the seasons are seen to be the very same in their regular recurrence, so are the beings in the successive stages' (V P. 1.5.64), 'Whatever were the names of the sages and (their) knowledge of the Vedas, the same the Unborn One gives to them when they are born at the end of the night. Similarly, the past individual gods are equal to the present gods in names and forms', and so on. Hence, since the gods too may be seekers, there is nothing contradic- tory in their being entitled to the knowledge of Brahman Therefore it is established that the gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Here ends the section entitled 'The deity' (7). Adhikaraṇa 8. The section entitled 'The honey and the rest'. (Sūtras 31-33) OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtras 31–32) SŪTRA 31 "ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOSSIBILITY, (THE SUN AND THE REST HAVE) NO RIGHT TO THE (MEDITATIONS ON) THE HONEY AND THE REST, (SO) JAIMINI (THINKS)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha It being impossible that the object worshipped can be the wor- shipper himself, the sun and the rest are not entitled to the medita- tions on the honey, etc.—so "Jaimini" thinks. Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, it has been said that the gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Now, the question is being considered whether or not they are entitled to meditations on the honey and the rest. The meditation on the honey is mentioned in the Chāndogya· 'This sun, verily, is the honey of the gods' (Chānd. 3.1.1) and so on. By the phrase "and so on" (in the sūtra) other meditations in which the gods are the objects worshipped are to be understood. Here a

[sū. 1. 3. 32. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 191 doubt arises, viz. Whether or not the gods are entitled to the medi- tations on the honey and the rest. What is reasonable here? Gods like the sun, Vasu and others have "no right" to the meditation on the "honey and the rest",—so the teacher "Jaimini" thinks. Why? "On account of impossibility," i.e. because it is impossible that the sun and the rest which are accepted as the objects to be worshipped in those meditations, can be themselves worshippers OPPONENT'S VIEW (concluded) SŪTRA 32 "AND BECAUSE OF (THEIR) BEING (WORSHIPPERS) WITH REGARD TO THE LIGHT (I E. BRAHMAN)" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And because of (their) being" worshippers "with regard to" Brahman, they are not entitled to the honey-meditation and the rest,— this is the prima facie view. Vedānta-kaustubha But it is not to be thought that this being the case the gods are without a Lord, because then they, being all of a mutually equal status, will come to be annihilated through vying with one another, and also because the text: 'Through fear the sun arises' (Tait. 2.8.1) will come to be contradicted. The fact is that they are the worshippers of the Highest Self and are themselves worshipped by others. So, the opponent points out here. The gods and the rest, who are the objects to be worshipped in the honey-meditation and the like, being worshippers "with regard to the light", i.e. of the Supreme Brahman, are not to be taken as the worshippers in the honey-meditation, etc.— this is the sense; as declared by the passage: 'That the gods worship as the Light of lights, as life, as immortal' (Bṛh. 4.4.16). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation of the word 'jyotiṣi' different The sūtra means, according to them: And because (the words 'sun', 'moon', and the

[sū. 1 3 33. 192 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 8.] rest) refer to the Light That is, the sun and the rest are not sentient deities, possessed of bodies, but are mere non-sentient spheres of light, and what is non-sentient cannot be, evidently, entitled to any meditation ¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 33) SŪTRA 33 “BUT BĀDARĀYAṆA (MAINTAINS) THE EXISTENCE (OF RIGHT ON THE PART OF THE GODS), FOR THERE IS (POSSIBLE LONGING FOR BRAHMAN ON THEIR PART).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha With regard to it, the author states the correct conclusion. “Bādarāyaṇa” maintains “the existence” of right on the part of the sun, Vasu and the rest, to the honey-meditation and the like as well, “because” a longing for Brahman “is” possible on their parts, conse- quent on the attainment by them of their respective offices in a future age as well, through the worship of Brahman, their Inner Controller. Vedānta-kaustubha Having thus set forth the view of Jaimini, his Holiness, wishing to refute it, is stating his own view. The word “but” precludes the prima facie view. The reverend “Bādarāyaṇa” maintains “the existence”, i.e. the existence of right on the part of the sun, Vasu and others, to the honey-meditation and the like as well, “because” a longing for Brahman is possible on the part of even the sun and Vasu and the rest in the present age, consequent on their attainment of sun-hood, Vasu-hood and the rest in a future age as well, through the worship of Brahman, their Inner Controller. Thus, here the worship of Brahman being enjoined both in His effected and causal states, the words ‘sun’ and the rest, imply Brahman, their Inner Controller; and hence it is possible for the very same Vasu and others to be the objects to be worshipped and attained, since the concluding text: ‘He who knows this Brahma-Upaniṣad’ (Chānd. 3.11.3) proves that the words ‘sun’ and the rest, imply

1 S.B. 1.3.32, pp. 336-67; Bh. B. 1.3 32, p. 66.