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

[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.

[SŪ 1. 3. 33 ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 193 Brahman. Thus, Brahman alone being the object to be worshipped even in the honey-meditation and the like, the text: 'That the gods worship as the light of lights, as life, as immortality' (Bṛh. 4 4.16) is perfectly consistent. It cannot be said also that as the fruit of the honey-meditation is the attainment of Vasu-hood and the rest, and as Vasu and the rest have already attained that, they cannot be seekers, or wish for these again,—because in ordinary experience, a desire for wealth in a future life is found on the part of those who are rich in the present life Hence, it is established that the gods are entitled to the honey-meditation and the like 1 Here ends the section entitled 'The honey and the rest' (8). 1 The Madhu-vidyā, or the representation of the sun as the honey extracted from all the Vedas, as taught first to Prajāpati by Brahmā, then to Manu by Prajāpati, and then to his descendants by Manu, and to Uddālaka Āruṇi by his father (Vide Chānd 3.11.4) is given in Chand 3 1-3 11. It begins. 'Verily, the sun is the honey of the gods Its cross-beam is the heaven The ether is the honey-comb The rays are the sons (1 e the sons of bees)' (Chānd. 3 1.1), and goes on to represent the eastern rays of the sun, its red form, as extracted from the Ry-veda; the southern rays of the sun, its white form, from the Yajur-veda; the western rays of the sun, its dark form, from the Sāma-veda, the northern rays of the sun, its exceedingly dark form, from the Athar va-veda; and the up- wards rays of the sun, its centre, from the Upaniṣads (Chānd. 3.1~3.5). After that the different forms of the sun are designated as the objects of enjoyment for Vasus, Rudras, Ādityas, Maruts and Sādhyas who respectively enter into and arise from those forms (Chānd. 3.6-3 10). Finally, in the concluding section the sun is represented as standing in the middle, without rising or setting, and as neither rising nor setting for one knows this Brahma-upaniṣad (= secret of Brahman) (Chānd. 3 11). (1) Here the opponent's view is that Vasus and the rest are enjoined here as the objects of worship (Chānd. 3.6-3.10) and hence they themselves cannot be the worshippers. The answer to this objection is that the Madhu-vidyā has two sections The first section (viz Chānd. 3 6-3.10) designates Brahman in His effected state, 1 e. as appearing in the forms of Vasus and the rest The second section (viz Chānd 3.11) designates Brahman in His causal state, 1 e. as abiding in the sun as its Inner Self. And the concluding designation of the Madhu-vidyā as a 'Brahma-upaniṣad', proves that the meditations on the Vasus and the rest too are really meditations on Brahman as abiding within them. Hence Brahman is really the object to be meditated throughout in the Madhu-vidyā, and as such Vasus and the rest can be worshippers here, i.e. can practise the Madhu-vidyā. 13

[SŪ. 1 3. 34. 194 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 9.] Śaṃkara Interpretation different, viz. ‘Bādarāyaṇa (maintains) the exis- tence (of right on the part of the gods), for (although the gods have no right to the Madhu-vidyā and the rest, in which they themselves are implicated, yet there is (their right to the pure knowledge of Brahman’).¹ Thus, Śaṃkara does not admit that the gods are entitled to the Madhu-vidyā as Nimbārka does. The view of the latter as we have seen, is that the gods are entitled not only to the knowledge of Brahman in general, but also to those vidyās in which they themselves are implicated. Bhāskara Interpretation of ‘asti hi’ different, viz. ‘ . for there is (scriptural evidence that the gods are entitled to the Madhu-vidyā and the rest)’.² ———————————— Adhikaraṇa 9: The section entitled ‘The exclu- sion of the Śūdras. (Sūtras 34—41) SŪTRA 34 “HIS GRIEF (AROSE) ON ACCOUNT OF HEARING ITS DISRESPECT, ON ACCOUNT OF HASTENING AT THAT TIME, FOR THIS IS WHAT IS INDICATED (BY THE TERM “ŚŪDRA”).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha It is not to be supposed, on the ground³ that in the Chāndogya the term ‘Śūdra’ is applied by a preceptor to one desirous of salvation, (2) The opponent resumes: Even if Brahman and none else, be the object of meditation here, yet Vasus cannot be held to be practising the Madhu-vidyā, since the fruit of Madhu-vidyā is the attainment of Vasu-hood, etc. and why should those who are already Vasus, etc. strive to be so again. The answer is that they may be Vasus and so on in the present age, but at the same time be desirous of holding the same position in a future age also, and of finally attaining Brahman. It is this desire of attaining Vasu-hood, etc. first and then Brahman which leads them to practise the Madhu-vidyā. ¹ ‘Yady-api madhv-ādi-vidyāsu devatādi-vya-miśrāsu asambhavo’ dhikā- rasya, tathāpi asti hi śuddhāyāṃ Brahmavidyāyāṃ sambhavaḥ’ Ś. B. 1.3.33, p. 367. ² Bh. B. 1.3.33, p. 66. ³ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason.

[sū. 1. 3. 34 ADH. 9 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 195 that a Śūdra ¹ is entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Because of "his", ² i.e. of Jānaśruti's, desire for salvation, on hearing the dis- respectful words used by the swan, and because of his hastening towards, for that reason, to the preceptor at that very moment,— 'it is indicated' that his grief had arisen and that was what was meant by the address 'Śūdra'. Vedānta-kaustubha Now the following question is being considered: Just as it has been said that the gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, as the term 'God' is mentioned in the text: 'Then, whosoever among the gods is awakened' (Bṛh. 1.4.10), so whether or not a Śūdra too is entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, seeing that in the Chān- dogya, the word 'śūdra' is mentioned in reference to Jānaśruti who desired for salvation. If it be suggested: The word 'śūdra' being mentioned in the Chāndogya under the Saṁvarga-vidyā in the passages: '"Oh! the necklace and the carriage be yours, O Śūdra, together with the cows"' (Chānd. 4.2.3), '"You have brought these, O Śūdra"!' (Chānd. 4.2.3); a Śūdra too must be entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, it being possible for him also to be a seeker.³ And, he may gain the know- ledge of the nature, etc. of Brahman through the hearing of tradition and the rest, in accordance with the statement of the ancient ones: 'He should make the four castes hear, beginning with the Brāhmaṇa' (Mahā. 12.12360a ⁴), and, the statement of Hari-Vaṁśa: 'One who is Śūdra by birth should attain a good end through hearing', which lays down an injunction with regard to the hearing of Brahman by him also. The prohibition contained in the passage: 'Hence, a Śūdra is not to be initiated to a sacrifice' (Tait. Saṁ. 7.1.1 ⁵), is concerned simply with his disqualification with regard to acts like sacrifices to be performed by means of fire, but is not a cause of his ¹ The fourth and the lowest caste ² Here the genitive case implies an agent (kartṛ) in accordance with Pāṇ. 2.3.65, SD. K. 623. ³ That is, just as it has been shown that gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, since they desire (arthins) for salvation, so the Śūdras too desire for salvation and are as such entitled to the same knowledge. ⁴ P. 81, line 4, vol. 3. ⁵ P. 241, line 21, vol. 2

196 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 3. 34. ADH. 9.] disqualification for knowledge, as knowledge is mental, and as Vidura ¹ and the rest, as well as women like Sulabhā ² and so on are found to possess the knowledge of Brahman,— We reply: A Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman for the following reasons. First, he lacks the requisite fitness, not having the knowledge of the nature of Brahman and the method of worshipping Him Secondly, although the worship of Brahman may be accomplished mentally, yet the knowledge of the nature, etc. of Brahman is generated by the study of the Veda, preceded by the investiture with the holy thread. Finally, a Śūdra being excluded from investitue, is not fit for knowing Brahman and as such his seeking is of no great value. As the injunctions regarding work hold good in the case of the first three classes, the prohibition holds good equally with regard to knowledgo as with regard to work. Also, as in accord- ance with the statement: 'The Veda is to be confirmed by tradition and Purāṇa' (Mahā. 1.260 ³), tradition and Purāṇa, too, confirm the knowledge established by the Veda, a Śūdra cannot attain knowledge from that too. The injunction about the 'hearing', on the other hand, simply means that such a 'hearing' has the effect of destroying a Śūdra's sins and securing prosperity for him, here or hereafter, and not that he is entitled to meditation or knowledge. The possession of knowledge by Vidura and the rest should be known to be due to the non-destruction of the knowledge which they attained in another birth, and their such low births should be known to be due to their works which had begun to bear fruits. Hence a Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman On the other hand, the term 'Śūdra', mentioned in Scripture, is to be explained thus. This the reverend author of the aphorisms states in the words: “ grief ”, and so on. “ For ” implies the reason, and “ his ”, means Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇas That is, on hearing the disrespectful words used by the swan for his want of knowledge of Brahman, thus. '“O, who is that man of whom you speak, as if he were Raikva, with the cart”?' (Chānd. 4.1.3), Jānaśruti at once ¹ Vidura was the younger brother of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu. He was the son of Vyāsa and a slave-girl, who was dressed as one of the widows of Vicitra- vīryya, and mistaken by Vyāsa as such Vide Mahā. 1.4301, etc. ² Sulabhā was female mendicant who entered into a highly learned discourse with Janaka. Vide Mahā 12.11854 et seq. (Chap. 321) ³ P. 10, line 11, vol. I.

[sū. 1. 3. 34. ADH 9] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 197 hastened to Raikva, the man with the cart and a knower of Brahman. From this, it is “indicated” that his “grief” had arisen. Hence, the address ‘Śūdra’ was applied by the sage to a non-Śūdra, with a view to intimating his own omniscience, thinking: ‘This Jānaśruti has come to learn the knowledge of Brahman from me, tempting me with the offering of riches. He does not know me, that I have performed all my duties and am omniscient’. Thus, (the whole story goes). Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇa was a royal saint, versed in religious duties. Certain divine sages, pleased with his multitude of qualities, and intending that having heard their conversation, and having thereupon approached Raikva, the knower of Brahman, Jānaśruti, too, would become a knower of Brahman, assumed the forms of swans and began to fly in a circle over the king who was lying on the roof of his palace in summer Then, the swan which was following said with surprise to the one which was leading. ‘O Bhallākṣa, Bhallākṣa, do you not see the light of the king Jānaśruti which has pervaded the region of the heaven? That light will burn you, so do not cross it’. On hearing these words of the one following it, the leading swan replied: ‘ “O, who is that man of him you speak as if he were Raikva, with the cart”? ’ (Chānd. 4 1.3), i.e you speak of this Jānaśruti as if he were Raikva with the cart, meaning, the reverend Raikva who has a ‘yugva’ or a cart and is a knower of Brahman. By the adjective ‘with a cart’, Raikva’s mark was indicated, in order that he might be easily found out and approached. Then, on hearing the disres- pectful words used by the swan, Jānaśruti too, ascertained, in the morning, the whereabout of Raikva through his man, and repaired to the sage Raikva, taking with him six hundred cows, a necklace and a chariot yoked with horses, and having approached him, said: ‘O Raikva! Take all these cows and the rest, and teach me, O reverend sir’. Raikva replied ‘ “O, the necklace ” ’ (Chānd. 4.2.3) and so on, i.e. ‘O Śūdra, the heap of wealth, like the chariot and the rest, together with the cows be yours’. And he addressed him as ‘O Śūdra’ more than once (viz again in Chānd. 4.2.5). A ‘Śūdra’ is one who grieves (śocati), and the word is formed in accordance with the rule: ‘When the root “śuc” is followed by the suffix “ra”, the “ca” is replaced by “da” ’ (SD. K. Uṇādi-sūtra 176 ¹), and the vowel ‘u’ is lengthened (in accordance with the uṇādi-sūtra 175 ²). Hence “his”, 1 P. 599, vol. 2. 2 Thus, śuc+ra = śud+ra = śūdra.

[sū. 1 3. 35. 198 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 9.] i.e. Jānaśruti's grief alone "was indicated" by Raikva, with a view to pointing out Jānaśruti's fitness for receiving instruction, and not his connection with any caste,—this is the sense ¹ SŪTRA 35 '(JĀNAŚRUTI WAS NOT A ŚŪDRA) ALSO BECAUSE WE KNOW OF (HIS) KṢATRIYAHOOD FROM THE INDICATION, (VIZ. THE FACT OF HIS BEING MENTIONED) LATER ON WITH CAITRARATHA" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "Because we know of the Kṣatriyahood" of Jānaśruti "from the indication" viz. that 'later on' he was mentioned together with Caitraratha Abhipratārin, Kṣatriya, in the passage: 'Now, when Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārin Kākṣaseni were being served food, a religious student begged of them' (Chānd. 4.3.5 ²), Jānaśruti was not a Śūdra. Vedānta-kaustubha From this reason also, the author, points out, the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti is known. His grief alone has arisen; hence he was called a 'Śūdra' by the sage; this being so, the Śūdrahood of Jānaśruti was not due to his caste. Why? Because we know of (his) Kṣatriyahood"; i.e. also because we know of his Kṣatriyahood from the fact that in the intro- ductory passage, viz. 'A plentiful giver, one preparing many food' (Chānd 4.1.1), he is known to be a lord of gifts and a giver of much well-cooked food, from the fact of his sending the door-keeper, known from the passage. 'He said to the door-keeper' (Chānd. 4 1 5) and from the fact of his giving golden ornaments, chariot and daughter to Raikva. Having, thus, stated the marks contained in the introduc- tory text and proving the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti, the author goes on to show the mark, contained in the concluding text of the saṃvarga- vidyā, according to the maxim of the 'crow's eye',³—the term "and" ¹ Vide Chānd 4.1–4 2. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ³ The maxim of the 'crow's eye' means as follows. Crows are supposed to have only one eye, which as occasion requires, moves from the cavity on one side into that of another. The maxim is used of a word which appears only once

[sū 1. 3 35. ADH. 9 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 199 (in the sūtra) referring to both—, in the words "And from the indica- tion, (viz the fact of his being mentioned) later on with Caitraratha : i e. "from the indication", viz. that Jānaśruti was mentioned together with Caitraratha who is ascertained to be a Kṣatriya from the fact of his association with a well-known priest of Kṣatriyas. Thus, in the concluding text, viz . 'Now, when Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhi- pratārin Kākṣaseni were being served food by a cook,¹ a religious student begged of them' (Chānd. 4.3 5), Caitraratha, named Abhi- pratārin is mentioned. This is the sense: On the enquiry: 'who were the two that were being served' 'by the cook', i.e. by one who superin- tends over the oven ²—the text says, Śunaka's descendant, the priest of the Kapi clan, and Kaksasena's descendant, named Abhipratārin, the king When these two sat down to eat, they were asked for alms. If it be asked. Whence do you know that Abhipratārin was a Caitraratha ? (a descendant of Citraratha),—we reply: He was so, because of his connection with Kāpeya, (i.e. descendant of Kapi), the priest of Citraratha. From the text 'The Kāpeyas made Citra- ratha perform sacrifice by this' (Tānd Br 20 12.5 ²), it is well-known that the Kāpeyas were the priests of Citraratha The term 'by this' means 'by the Dvi-rātra'. If it be objected. Very well, let Abhipratārin be Caitraratha because of his connection with a priest of Citra, but what proof is there of his Kṣatriyahood ?—(we reply): The text: 'From him was born a king of Kṣatriyas, named Caitraratha', is the proof. The words 'from him' mean 'from Citraratha'. A Kṣatriya being referred to in the end, Jānaśruti, mentioned in the beginning, too, must be a Kṣatriya, since in one and the same vidyā there is the mention, as a rule, of persons of the same class,— this is the meaning of the aphorism. Moreover, the Kṣatriyahood of Abhipratārin being ascertained in the end on the ground of his in a sentence, but which applies to two portions of it, or to two persons or things, fulfilling a double purpose The maxim may be said to approximate to the English one of 'killing two birds with one stone'. Vide L.N, Part I, pp. 12-13. Likewise, here the phrase ' Kṣatriyatvāvagameḥ' fulfils a double purpose, meaning both 'on account of knowing the Kṣatriyahood of Caitraratha Abhipratārin', and 'on account of knowing the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti' See p. 200, n. 1. ¹ The word 'sūdena' not found in the original text. Vide Chānd. 4.3.5, p. 189. ² P. 561, vol. 2.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 36. 200 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 9.] association with Kāpeya, a Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti, too, is ascertained in the beginning on the ground of his association with Raikva,—this is the sense.¹ COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Reading different, viz. They break it into two different sūtras: ‘Kṣatriyatvā gateś ca’ (sūtra 34), and ‘uttaratra-liṅgāt’ (sūtra 35 ²). Bhāskara Reading different, viz. ‘Kṣatriyatvā-gateś ca . . . ³ instead of ‘Kṣatriyatva-avagateś ca . . .’ SŪTRA 36 “ON ACCOUNT OF THE REFERENCE TO PURIFICATORY RITES, AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECLARATION OF THEIR ABSENCE (IN THE CASE OF A ŚŪDRA), (A ŚŪDRA IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF BRAHMAN)” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “On account of the reference to the purificatory rites” of investi- ture with the holy thread in the section concerned with knowledge, ¹ Thus, altogether three reasons are advanced—why Jānaśruti is to be taken as a Kṣatriya:— (a) In the beginning, Jānaśruti is said to be practising charity, feeding people on a large scale, which proves him to be a Kṣatriya. (b) In the end, Abhipratārin is mentioned, and Abhipratārin being a Kṣatriya, Jānaśruti must he so, since persons of the class are entitled to the same Vidyā. (c) Abhipratārin, mentioned in the end, is said to be a Kṣatriya, because of his connection with a Brāhmaṇa (viz. Kāpeya), and hence Jānaśruti, mentioned in the beginning must be so, because of his connection with a Brāhmaṇa (viz. Raikva). ² Śrī. B. 1.3.34-35, pp. 337-338, Part 1, Madras ed. Some editions read ‘Kṣatriyatva-avagateśca’. Vide Bombay ed., p. 326. The Benares of V.D , reads ‘Kṣatriyatva-gateś ca’ (p. 60); but the Brin- davan ed. of V.S., reads ‘Kṣatriyatva-avagateś ca’ (p. 46). Śk. 1 3.34-35, pp. 438, 480, Part 5 ³ Bh. B. 1.3.34, p. 67.

[SŪ 1. 3. 36. ADH. 9] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 201 thus. 'He invested him, forsooth, with the holy thread' (Śat. Br. 11 5 3 13 ¹) and so on, "and on account of the declaration of their absence" thus: 'A Śūdra, belongs to the fourth caste and is once- born (G.D.S. 10 50 ²), 'And he is not fit for a purificatory rite (Manu 10 126 ³),—a Śūdra is not entitled to knowledge. Vedānta-kaustubha In the previous aphorism, the disqualification of a Śūdra for the knowledge of Brahman has been established on the ground of reason Now, his disqualification is being proved on the ground of Scripture, etc. as well. A Śūdra is not entitled to knowledge. Why? "On account of the reference to purificatory rites," i.e. on account of the reference to the purificatory rites of investiture with the holy thread in sections concerned with knowledge, thus 'He invested him, forsooth, with the holy thread' (Śat. Br 11 5 3.13). But, then, is it to be supposed that a Śūdra, too, is entitled to investiture? To this it is replied "On account of the declaration of their absence", i.e on account of the depiction of the absence, in the case of a Śūdra, of purificatory rites like investiture with the holy thread and the rest, in the passages : 'In a Śūdra there is no sin and he is not fit for a purificatory rite' (Manu. 10.126). 'A Śūdra belongs to the fourth caste and is once- born' (G.D S. 10.50) and so on The investiture with the holy thread is designated in the case of others in the passage: 'Let one invest a Brāhmaṇa with the holy thread at the age of eight, a Kṣatriya at eleven, and a Vaiśya at twelve' (Āś. GS. 17.1 3-4 ⁴) Hence, the reference to investiture with the holy thread fits in in the sections concerned with knowledge.

¹ P 861, line 19. ² P. 14, line 8. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ³ P. 419. ⁴ P. 72. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

|SŪ. 1. 3. 37 202 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 9.| SŪTRA 37 "AND BECAUSE OF (GAUTAMA'S) PROCEEDING (TO INITIATE JĀBĀLA) ON THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE ABSENCE OF THAT (VIZ HIS ŚŪDRAHOOD), (A ŚŪDRA IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF BRAHMAN)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Moreover, "because of" Gautama's "proceeding" to invest Jābāla with the holy thread and to teach him, only "on the ascer- tainment of the absence" of his Śūdrahood,—here, too, a Śūdra is not indeed entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason too, says the author, a Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman Fatherless Jābāla, desirous of salvation, and about to approach a preceptor, asked his mother with a view to learning his lineage. 'Of what lineage am I?' She too, unaware of his lineage, replied: 'I do not know'. Jābāla too, having approached Gautama, said: 'Reverend Sir! I wish to stay in your place as a student of sacred know- ledge' Then, being asked by him: 'Of what lineage are you?' Jābāla said: 'Sir, I do not know of what lineage I am,' and so on. Thus, when Jābāla had spoken the truth, and when, thereby, the absence of Jābāla's Śūdrahood had been ascertained thus: '"A non- Brāhmaṇa cannot speak thus"' (Chānd 4.4.5 ¹), then only Gautama proceeded to invest Jābāla with the holy thread and teach him with the words: '"Fetch the fuel, my child. I shall invest you with the holy thread. You have not deviated from truth"' (Chānd. 4 4.5 ²). Hence, a Śūdra is not entitled to knowledge. 1 Correct quotation—' . . vivaktum arhati' Vide Chānd. 4.4.5, p. 196. 2 Vide Chānd. 4.4 for the whole story.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 38. ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 203 SŪTRA 38 “ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROHIBITION OF HEARING, STUDYING, AND (LEARNING) THE MEANING (OF THE VEDA), (A ŚŪDRA IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF BRAHMAN).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha A Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, “on account of the prohibition of the hearing” and so on of the Veda on his part, in the text ‘One should not study (the Veda) in the vicinity of a Śūdra’ (V.Sm 18.9 ¹) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason, too, a Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. For what reason? “On account of the prohibition of hearing” and the rest on the part of a Śūdra, in the passage ‘A cemetery, endowed with feet, is, verily, a Śūdra ² Hence one should not study (the Veda) in the vicinity of a Śūdra’ (V Sm 18.9), ‘Hence a Śūdra is a beast,³ not fit for sacrifices’ and on so. The sense (of the first passage) is. A ‘cemetery’ that is ‘endowed with feet’, i.e. capable of moving, ‘is a Śūdra’, in whose presence one should not even study the Vedas. The sense is that the hearing of the Veda, the study of it, the performance of the religious duties mentioned therein, are prohibited, all the more, to a Śūdra. COMPARISON Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva They treat this sūtra and the next as one sūtra ⁴

¹ P 216, line 20. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Reading slightly differs, viz. ‘Eka vai tac-chmaśānaṁ . . .’ (p. 216). ³ ‘Bahu-paśuḥ paśu sadṛśa iti arthaḥ.’ Śrī. B. 1.3.38, p. 339, Part I. ⁴ Ś B. 1 3 38, p. 376; Bh. B. 1 3.38, p. 68; G B. 1.3 38

204 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 1. 3. 39-40. ADH. 6 resumed ] SŪTRA 39 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF SMṚTI.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “And on account of the Smṛti”, viz. ‘One should not teach him sacred duties’ (Manu 4.80b ¹, V.Sm. 18 12 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha “And on account of the Smṛti”, viz ‘One should not teach him sacred duties, nor sacred vows’ (Manu 4 80b, V.Sm 18 12), ‘One should not impart knowledge to a śūdra’ (Manu 4.80a; V Sm. 18.12) and so on. Here ends the section entitled ‘The exclusion of Śūdras’ (9). Adhikarana 6 resumed. The section entitled ‘What is measured’ resumed. (Sūtras 40 - 41) SŪTRA 40 “ON ACCOUNT OF THE SHAKING.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha What is measured, is to be known as the Supreme Person, He being the shaker of the entire universe, and because the words ‘great’ and the rest are found used. Vedānta-kaustubha After having completed the incidental discussion about qualifica- tion (adhikāra) in connection with the discussion about the Person, measured as the size of merely a thumb, begun in the aphorism ‘On account of the text only, what is measured (is the Lord)’ (Br. Sū. 1.3.24), the author is finishing the original discussion. ¹ P 146. ² P. 217, line 1. R.

[SŪ. 1 3. 41] ADH. 6 resumed.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 205 The words ‘what is measured’ are to be supplied. In the Kaṭha- vallī, we find the following in the section of the Person, of the size of merely a thumb ‘Whatever there is, the whole world, emanated (from the vital-breath), trembles in the vital-breath alone, the great fear, a thunderbolt about to be hurled. Those who know that become immortal’ (Kaṭha 6. 2). Here, what is measured as of the size of a thumb and is denoted by the term ‘vital-breath’ is none but the Supreme Being. Why? For the following reasons: First, “on account of the shaking”, i. e. the Lord alone is the cause of the shaking of the entire universe, emanated from Himself. Secondly, the term ‘great’, which is a synonym for Brahman, has been used. Thirdly, the term ‘fear’ proves that the vital-breath is Brahman, for He alone is the cause of the fear of all, as declared by the text: ‘Through fear of him the fire burns, through fear the sun shines, through fear Indra, Wind and Death, the fifth, speed on’ (Kaṭha 6. 3), and finally, the Lord alone is the cause of the immortality of one who possesses know- ledge of Him. COMPARISON Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different, viz. they take this sūtra as forming a new adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the term ‘prāṇa’ in Kaṭha-upaniṣad (6.2) denotes Brahman or not. But according to Nimbārka, this sūtra does not begin a new adhikaraṇa, but only resumes adhikaraṇa 6. Baladeva Interpretation different, viz he also begins a new adhikaraṇa here, concerned with the question whether the term ‘vajra’ in Kaṭha- upaniṣad (6. 2) denotes Brahman or not. SŪTRA 41 “BECAUSE OF PERCEIVING LIGHT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Because in the text: ‘Through his light’ (Kaṭha 5.15¹), ‘light’ is mentioned, the measured Person is the Supreme Being. ¹ R, B.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 42. 206 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.] Vedānta-kaustubha In the very same Kaṭha-vallī, in the section of the Person measured as of the size of a thumb, it is declared, prior to the text about the vital-breath, (viz. Kaṭha 6. 2) 'The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor do these lightnings shine, much less this fire. He shining, everything else shines after him. All this shines through his light' (Kaṭha 6.2). "Because" in this text, light, belonging exclusively to the Supreme Soul who is denoted by the term 'light', "is seen" (i.e. declared), it is established that what is of the size of merely a thumb is none but the Supreme Soul. Here ends the section entitled 'What is measured' (6). COMPARISON Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different, viz. they take this sūtra as forming a new adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the term 'light' in the Chāndogyopaniṣad (8. 12.6) denotes Brahman or not.¹ Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. '(The word "vajra" in the Kaṭho- paniṣad must mean the Lord), because it is seen (that in a preceding passage He is called) light'.² Adhikaraṇa 10: The section entitled 'Some- thing different'. (Sūtras 42–44) SŪTRA 42 "THE ETHER (IS BRAHMAN), ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION (OF IT) AS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND SO ON." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the passage: 'The ether, verily, is the producer of name and form' (Chānd. 8.14. 1³), the object denoted by the term 'ether' is the ¹ S.B. 1.3.40, pp. 380 et seq., Bh. B. 1.3.40, p. 69; SK. B. 1.3. 41, pp. 498 et seq. Part 5. ² G.B. 1.3.40. ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B

[SŪ 1. 3 42. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 207 Highest Person. Why? "On account of the designation" of the Supreme Soul "as something different" from even the freed souls,— He being the producer of all objects possessing names and forms implied by the term 'name and form',—as well as on account of the designation of Brahmanhood, immortality and the rest on its part. Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, by means of the aphorism: 'On account of the text only, what is measured (is the Lord)' (Br Sū 1 3 24), the text regarding the Person of the size of merely a thumb has been shown to be referring to Brahman, and this has been confirmed once more immediately after the end of the incidental sections. Now, with a view to desig- nating the non-attachment and the omnipresence of the Supreme Self, it is being shown that the text about the ether, too, refers to Him. In the Chāndogya, we read: 'The ether, verily, is the producer of name and form. That within which they are is Brahman, that is immortal, that is the soul' (Chānd. 8.14.1). Here a doubt arises, viz. whether by the term 'ether' the elemental ether is to be under- stood here, or the soul freed from the bondage of mundane existence, or the Supreme Soul. If it be said that the elemental ether is to be understood, since the term 'ether' is well-known to denote that alone,—(we reply:) no, on account of the term 'soul'. What then should be understood? If it be suggested: the freed soul, Why? For the following reasons: First, the freed soul alone has been men- tioned previously as the topic of discussion, in the passage: 'Shaking off (evils) as a horse shakes off his hairs' (Chānd. 8.13.1),—the phrase: 'That within which they are' means: That soul, freed from mundane existence, from which 'they', i.e. name and form 'are different' (antara), i.e. outside. Further, the discarding of the well-known name and form is possible on the part of the soul in its state of release, as declared by the passage: 'Just as the flowing rivers, discarding name and form' (Muṇḍ. 3.2.8). And, finally, the term 'ether', too, is appropriate with regard to the freed soul, it being possessed of fully manifest knowledge. The phrase: 'That is Brahman, that is immortal' denotes the state of salvation. (Author's conclusion.) We reply: The meaning of the term 'ether' here can fittingly be the Supreme Soul alone. Why? "On account of the designation

[SŪ. 1. 3. 43. 208 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.] (of it) as something different", i. e. on account of the designation of the object denoted by the term 'ether',—which is untouched by name and form, as evident from the phrase 'That within which they are', and is the producer of name and form, as evident from the phrase 'The producer of name and form',—as different from the object which is devoid of the power of being a producer, since during its state of bondage, the soul, partaking of name and form as subject to karmas, is not itself capable of producing, i e. revealing, name and form,— to do so being all the more impossible on its part during its state of release. That the activities in connection with (the creation and the rest) of the Universe, are impossible on its part, will be expressly stated later on ¹. On the other hand, that the Supreme Soul, an adept in the creation of the entire Universe, is such a producer, is well-estab- lished by Scripture itself, thus: '"Having entered with this living soul, let me evolve name and form"' (Chānd. 6 3 2), 'From him arose—² this name, form and food' (Muṇḍ. 1.1 9) 'The Wise One, who abides conceiving all forms, giving names, and declaring (them)' (Tait. Ār. 3.12.7 ³) The 'ether' is Brahman also on account of the designation, in the text, of the exclusive qualities of the Lord, such as, being eternally manifest, greatness, immortality and the rest, implied by the term "and so on" (in the sūtra). Nor has the freed soul been mentioned before as the topic of discussion, the Supreme Soul alone being the topic, as evident from the passage: 'I attain the world of Brahman' (Chānd. 8.13 1), and the term 'ether', too, being well-known to denote the Supreme Soul alone, it being all- pervasive and non-attached. SŪTRA 43 "(AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF BRAHMAN) AS DIFFERENT (FROM THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL) IN DEEP SLEEP AND DEPARTURE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And on account of the designation of the omniscient "as different" from the non-knower "in deep sleep and departing". ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 4.4 17. ² Correct quotation: 'Tasmād etat Brahma . . . '. Vide Muṇḍ. 1.1.9, p. 10. ³ P. 199.

[sū. 1. 3. 43. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 209 Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected: Since it is found from a consideration of the meaning of the text 'Thou art that' (Chānd. 6.8 7, etc.¹) that there cannot possibly be anything different from Brahman, how can it be said. "On account of the designation (of Brahman) as something different and so on"? (Br. Sū. 1.3.42)— (We reply)· True In spite of there being non-difference between the individual soul, which is a part of Brahman, and Brahman, owing to the fact that the individual soul has no existence, activity and the rest apart from Brahman,—its difference from Him, too, is inevitable, possessing as it does its own peculiar qualities,—so says the reverend author of the aphorisms. The words "on account of the designation" are to be supplied. (The individual soul and Brahman are different from each other,) on account of the designation of the Supreme Soul, the omniscient, as "different" from the individual soul, the non-knower, "in deep sleep", in the passage : 'Embraced by the Intelligent Soul, he does not know anything external, nor anything internal' (Bṛh. 4.3.21), and "in departure", in the passage 'Mounted by the Intelligent Soul, it goes groaning' (Bṛh. 4.3.35). 'Mounted' means superin- tended, 'groaning' means making frightful sounds, or sounds of hiccough. It is not possible that the non-knowing soul, sleeping or departing, can at the same time, becoming intelligent, embrace or mount itself, or that another individual soul can do so, omniscience being impossible on the latter's part as well. COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz. according to them, this adhikaraṇa is concerned with the question whether the Bṛhadāraṇyaka text 4.3.7 refers to the Supreme Soul, or not.² ¹ Also occurs in Chānd. 6.9.4, 6.10.3, 6.11.3, 6.12.3, 6.13.3, 6.14.3, 6.15.3, 6.16.3. ² Ś.B. 1.3.42, pp. 382; Bh B 1.3.42, p. 70.