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

[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.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 44. 210 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.] SŪTRA 44 “ON ACCOUNT OF WORDS LIKE ‘LORD’ AND THE REST.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On account of the designation of the Supreme Soul as different from the individual soul by the texts: ‘The Lord of all’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22, 5.6.1 ¹), ‘The ruler of all’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ²), it is established that He alone is the ether. Here ends the third section of the first chapter in the Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā- texts composed by the reverend Nimbārka. Vedānta-kaustubha The author dwells on the difference between the individual soul and Brahman. There is indeed a difference between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. Why? “On account of words like ‘lord’ and the rest”, i.e. on account of texts like: ‘The Lord of all’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22, 5.6.1), ‘The controller of all’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22), ‘The ruler of all’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22), ‘He rules all this’ (Bṛh. 5 6 1), ‘He is the Lord of all’ (Bṛh. 4 4 22) and so on Though already shown above, we shall speak of this difference- non-difference in detail later on ³. Hence, it is established that on account of the designation of the Lord as something different and so on, the meaning of the term ‘ether’ is none but the Supreme Lord. Here ends the section entitled ‘Something different’ (10). Here ends the third section of the first chapter in the Vedānta- kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, and composed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa. ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Op. cit. ³ Vide e.g. V.K. 1 4.9, 1.4 20, 1 4 21, 2.1 13, 2 1.21, etc.

[sū. 1. 3. 44. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 211 COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz. the same topic continued.¹ Résumé The third section of the first chapter contains: (1) 44 sūtras and 10 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka. (2) 43 sūtras and 13 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṃkara (3) 44 sūtras and 10 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja. (4) 43 sūtras and 13 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara. (5) 44 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha. (6) 43 sūtras and 10 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva. Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva read the sūtras 38 and 39 in Nimbārka's commentary as one sūtra. Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha read the sūtras 2 and 3 in Nimbārka's commentary as one sūtra, while breaking the sūtra 35 in the same as two different sūtras. ¹ Ś.B 1.3.43, p 385; Bh. B. 1.3.43, p. 70

FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyāya) FOURTH QUARTER (Pāda) Adhikarana 1 The section entitled 'What is derived from inference'. (Sūtras 1–7) SŪTRA 1 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT WHAT IS DERIVED FROM INFERENCE (VIZ. PRADHĀNA), TOO, (IS MENTIONED IN THE TEXTS) OF SOME (BRANCHES), (WE REPLY:) NO, BECAUSE OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS PUT DOWN IN THE SIMILE OF THE BODY, AND (THE TEXT) SHOWS (THIS).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that in a text of the Kaṭha-branch, viz. ‘Higher than the great (mahat) is the unmanifest (avyakta), higher than the unmanifest is the Person (puruṣa)’ (Kaṭha 3.11 ¹), “What is derived from inference” ², i.e. pradhāna, “too”, is found mentioned,³— (We reply :) “No”, because in accordance with the text: ‘Know the soul to be the lord of the chariot and the body to be the chariot’ (Kaṭha 3.3 ⁴), the body, which is put down in the simile of the chariot, is understood by the term ‘unmanifest’. “And” having demon- strated the mode of subduing the sense-organs, the text “shows”, in the concluding portion ⁵, that what had been previously contrived through the simile ⁶ (viz. the body), is understood here, thus: ‘A wise man should restrain speech in the mind, that he should restrain in the intelligent soul, the intelligent soul in the great (mahat), that he should restrain in the tranquil soul’ (Kaṭha 3.13 ⁷) ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² For, why pradhāna is called ‘ānumānika’, see footnote 1, p 42. ³ Cf. Br. Sū. 1.1.5, which contends that pradhāna is ‘aśabda’ or not mentioned in Scripture. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ⁵ C.S S. ed. reads ‘vākya-śeṣaḥ’ (p. 19). ⁶ ‘Rūpaka-parikalpitaṁ grahaṇam’ is evidently a misprint. All other editions read ‘rūpaka-parikalpita-grahaṇam’, meaning ‘rūpaka-parikalpitasya grahaṇam’. Vide e.g C.S S. ed (p. 19). ⁷ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 1 ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 213 Vedānta-kaustubha In this manner, it has been shown above, under three sections, that the scriptural texts all refer to Brahman, possessing the sentient and the non-sentient as His powers, an ocean of natural, infinite and inconceivable auspicious qualities, untouched by any material qualities and the cause of the world. Now again, in the fourth section, by showing ¹ that those texts too which apparently seem to establish pradhāna—which is demonstrated by the doctrine of Kapila and is independent of Brahman,—all refer really to Brahman, and by estab- lishing ² that pradhāna is acceptable only as dependent on Brahman, —the reverend author of the aphorisms is removing the false belief, viz. that certain words like 'Unmanifest' and the rest, which denote pradhāna, being mentioned in Scripture, pradhāna, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, is neither non-scriptural, nor derived from inference merely. In the Kaṭha-valli, we find the following: 'Higher than the great (mahat) is the unmanifest (avyakta), higher than the unmanifest is the Person (puruṣa)' (Kaṭha 3.11). Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether the object denoted by the word 'unmanifest' is pradhāna, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, or the body. The prima facie view is as follows: Let it be pradhāna, because here we recognize the very same order, beginning with the great (mahat) and ending with the Person (puruṣa), which is well-known in the Kapila-smṛti. If it be objected: The concordance of the entire Veda with regard to Brahman, the cause of the world, has been established duly; hence it is not possible to establish its connection with anything else, (the reply is:) Very well, let then pradhāna, "derived from inference", (mentioned in the texts) "of some" schools, be the cause of the world. So here in the school of the Kāṭhakas pradhāna is understood by the term 'un- manifest'. (Here ends the original prima facie view.) (Author's conclusion:) "No". Wherefore? "Because of under- standing what is put down in the simile of the body", i.e. because by the term 'unmanifest' in this text, the body, mentioned in the preceding text and put down as a simile, is to be understood. A simile means the imagination of one object as another on the ground of a certain similarity. Thus, compare the passages: 'Know the soul to be the lord of the chariot, the body to be the chariot, know intellect

¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason. ² See footnote 1, above.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 1. 214 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] to be the charioteer, and the mind to be the reins. The sense-organs, they say, are the horses, the objects of the senses their roads; the self, connected with the sense-organs and the mind, is the enjoyer, so the wise say. He who is devoid of understanding and ever inattentive, his sense-organs are uncontrollable, like the wicked horses of a cha- rioteer. But he who is possessed of intelligence and ever attentive, his sense-organs are controllable, like the good horses of a charioteer He, however, who is devoid of understanding, is inattentive and ever impure, does not attain that place, and attains mundane existence But he who is possessed of understanding, is attentive and ever pure, attains that place whence he is not born again. A man, however, who has understanding as his charioteer and the mind as his reins, attains the end of the road, that supreme place of Viṣṇu’ (Kaṭha 3.3; 3 9). In these passages, a man—who is desirous of the place of Viṣṇu, the end of the road of transmigratory existence, and who being the enjoyer is the principal agent—is first metaphorically represented as the lord of a chariot, his body,—which is subordinate to him as the abode of his enjoyment,—as the chariot, and the sense-organs, intellect and the rest, as the charioteer and the rest, as far as possible,—which shows that just as it is possible for a potter to be the creator of pots, etc. only when he is connected with the wheel, the stick and the rest, so the attributes of the soul, viz. ‘being an agent’, ‘being an enjoyer’ and the rest, are found to belong to it, only when it is connected with the body, the sense-organs, etc. and not when it is devoid of attributes, since it is impossible for it then to be the realizing agent,—one who is approaching a goal. After that, the qualities of a sentient being, like: ‘being an agent’, ‘being a realizing agent who is approaching towards a goal’ and so on, implied by its quality of ‘being an enjoyer’ are stated. Immediately after, the liability of a non-knower, whose sense-organs are unrestrained, to transmigratory existence, and the fitness of a knower, whose sense-organs are restrained, for the place of Viṣṇu are designated; and then the place of Viṣṇu is pointed out as the object to be reached. Immediately after this, Scripture goes on to declare those objects which have superiority to others, in so far as these latter are to be controlled, in the passage: ‘Higher than the sense-organs are the objects of senses, higher than the objects is the mind, higher than the mind is intellect, higher than intellect is the great soul. Higher than the great (mahat) is the unmanifest (avyakta), higher than the unmanifest is the Person (puruṣa), nothing is higher