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

[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

[Sū. 1. 4. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 215 than the Person, He is the goal, the highest course ’ (Kaṭha 3.10 ; 3 11). Here, the objects, designated before as the lord of the chariot and the rest, are mentioned irrespective of the simile ¹ for the sake of making the intended meaning clear ² And the soul and the rest, metaphorically represented as the lord of the chariot and so on, are here referred to by those very terms (‘soul’ and so on) respectively; and the body, metaphorically represented as the chariot, being left over, is denoted by the term ‘unmanifest’ ³. Thus, the objects of senses, metaphorically represented as the roads, are ‘higher than’, i. e. superior to, the sense-organs, metaphorically represented as the horses, in so far as these latter are to be controlled, since when in proximity to objects of senses, the sense-organs of even a self-controlled man are found to incline to them once more. Higher than those even is the mind, metaphorically represented as the reins, since the proximity to objects of sense too is of little avail if the mind be not inclined to them. Higher than that even is intellect, metaphorically represented as the charioteer, since the mind, too, is of little avail in the absence of apprehension Higher than that even is the soul, metaphorically represented as the lord of the chariot, because of its superiority as an agent. Since all these depend upon its will, it alone is specified as the ‘great’. Higher than that even is the body, metaphorically represented as the chariot, since all the activities of the individual soul in connection with all the means to salvation depend on the body. Higher than that even is the Person, the soul of all and the end of the road of transmigratory existence, since everything else, mentioned previously, are under His control. When He is won by

¹ A krama is a kind of simile in which the comparisons exhibited correspond to each other in regular succession. M. W., p. 319, Col. 2. ² That is, in order that the intended meaning may be clearly conveyed to the reader, the metaphorical way of representation, resorted to above, is given up here, and the actual objects, the sense-organs and the rest, are directly and plainly stated. ³ The argument is as follows : In Kaṭha 3.3–3.9 the soul, the body and the rest, are successively compared to the lord of a chariot, a chariot and so on, while in Kaṭha 3 10–3 11 the same objects, viz. the soul and so on, are mentioned once more, not metaphorically, but directly and plainly. Now in these latter verses, the soul, etc. are denoted by those very words, only there is no actual mention of the body. Hence, when everything else fits in, the body, the only remaining one on this side, must be denoted by the term ‘unmanifest’, the only remaining one on that side

[SŪ. 1. 4 1. 216 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] means of meditation, as directed, all the ends of a man are accomplished, as declared by the passage: ‘Whatever verily, be the means resorted to for the sake of the four ends of a man, a man, who has taken refuge in Nārāyaṇa, attains them without it’. Hence, here the mahat, an effect of pradhāna, is not understood by the term ‘great’; nor pradhāna, its cause, by the term ‘unmanifest’, nor puruṣa, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, the twenty-fifth principle in contrast to the twenty-four material ones, by the term ‘Person’ The entire Veda is in con- cordance with regard to this very Person, the object which one should desire to enquire into, and an ocean of infinite, auspicious attributes, there being nothing higher than Him, in accordance with the scrip- tural text: ‘There is nothing higher than the Person’ (Kaṭha 3.11), the Smṛti passage. ‘There is nothing else higher than me, O Dhanañ- jaya’ (Gītā 7.7). The Person alone is the object to be attained, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘That is the goal, that is the highest course’ (Kaṭha 3.11), as well as with the declaration by the interpreter of the texts (viz. Nimbārka): ‘There is no other goal except the lotus-feet of Kṛṣṇa’ (D.Ś. 8a). Having shown that the Supreme Person is difficult to be attained by one who is not self-controlled, while easy to be attained by one who is self-controlled, and having shown the mode of subduing the sense-organs, the text “shows”, in the concluding portion, that what had appeared previously in the simile is understood here, (and not the Sāṁkhya pradhāna), thus. ‘This soul, hidden in all beings, is not manifest, but is perceived by subtle seers through highest, subtle intellect. A wise man should restrain speech in the mind, that he should restrain in the intelligent soul, the intelligent soul in the great, that he should restrain in the tranquil soul’ (Kaṭha 3 12-3.13). (The text means:) ‘This’, i.e. Vāsudeva,—omniscient, to be approached by the freed souls, and without an equal or a superior, as stated in the text: ‘There is nothing higher than the Person, that is the goal, that is the highest course’ (Kaṭha 3 11),—though present in all beings, ‘is not manifest’, i.e. is not perceived by all, since they are not entitled to perceive Him. For this very reason, He is ‘hidden’,—the com- pound (viz. ‘gūṛdho’ tmā’) is in accordance with Vedic use,—as declared by the Lord Himself: ‘“I am not manifest to all”’ (Gītā 7.25). If one is entitled to perceive the Lord, then alone He comes to be perceived; hence it is said ‘is perceived’ and so on. All the sense-organs, implied by the term ‘speech’, should be restrained in the

[SŪ 1. 4. 2. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 217 mind,—the long vowel (ī in 'manasī') is in accordance with Vedic use ; the mind in the intelligent soul, i e in intellect, since 'being intelligent' and 'being the soul' are possible on the part of intellect, owing to its connection with the individual soul, intelligence in the great soul, i e. in the individual soul; and that in the tranquil, i.e. in Brahman, the Universal Cause. The sense is that if in the previous case (viz. Katha 3.11), because of understanding ¹ the principle 'mahat' by the term 'great', we understand its cause,—viz. pradhāna which is derived from inference,—by the term 'unmanifest' on the ground of its immediate proximity to it, then, here, too, that may be understood by the term 'great', and hence (the injunction :) 'One should restrain the great in the tranquil' should lead to undesired conclusions ². Hence the concluding text, too, shows that what had previously appeared in the simile of the body is understood here SŪTRA 2 "BUT THE SUBTLE (BODY IS DENOTED BY THE TERM 'UNMANIFEST') BECAUSE OF ITS FITNESS (TO BE DENOTED SO)" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be said that the word "unmanifest" denotes something subtle,—(we reply it may denote the body too,) since the body too, the meaning (of the term "unmanifest"), is a grosser state of something subtle indeed. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected : Although the subtle body is fit to be denoted by the term "unmanifest" since in the simile of the chariot the parts of the subtle body (viz. the sense-organs, the mind, etc.) ³ are under- stood as the parts of the chariot (viz. the horses, the reins, etc.), yet it cannot be said to be the chariot, On the contrary, it is the gross body which has been put down as the chariot. But how can it be understood by the term "unmanifest", it being something manifest ? ¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason. ² That is, in that case the mahat would be dependent on Brahman, a conclu- sion which is contrary to the Sāṁkhya view itself. ³ The constituents of the subtle body are the five tan-mātras, the ten sense- organs, the mind, and the vital-breath. Vide V.R.M.P. 30.

218 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 4. 3. ADH. 1.] We reply. The word "but" implies emphasis The body is the gross effect, pradhāna is the subtle cause, and that alone is to be understood; so the term "unmanifest" may very well refer to it. Why? "Because of its fitness", i.e. because of the fitness of the subtle pradhāna to assume the form of the effect, or because of the fitness of the effect to assume the form of the cause. Just as in the text: 'All this verily, is Brahman, emanating from Him, disappearing into Him and breathing in Him' (Chānd. 3.14.1), the universe, though different from Brahman as His effect, having been emanated from Him, is yet declared to be non-different from Him, so is this body, which is non- different from pradhāna. Or else, (an alternative explanation;) because of the fitness of that word "unmanifest", denoting the cause, to denote the effect too ¹, as in the example: 'Mix the soma with cows' (Ṛg. V. 9.46.4 ²). COMPARISON Rāmānuja Interpretation of 'tad arhatvāt' different, viz. because the unmanifest matter alone, when it has assumed the form of the effect (viz. body), is fit to undertake activities, promoting the end of men, like a chariot ³ SŪTRA 3 "(PRADHĀNA) HAS A MEANING ON ACCOUNT OF (ITS) DEPENDENCE ON HIM." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Pradhāna, taught in the Upaniṣads, "has a meaning on account of its dependence" on the Supreme Cause; while that admitted by others is meaningless, such is the distinction (between our pradhāna and that of others, viz. of the Sāṁkhyas). ¹ The argument is that the cause and the effect being non-different, a term denoting the one, can very well denote the other. Hence the term 'unmanifest', denoting pradhāna, the cause, can denote the body, its effect as well. ² P. 203, line 16. That is, the Soma is to be mixed, not with the cow, the cause, but with the milk, its effect Here a word, denoting the cause, really stands for the effect. ³ Śrī. B 1.4.2, p. 357, Chap. 1.

{SŪ. 1. 4. 3. VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 219 ADH. 1.] Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. In that case, be happy by falling in with the Sāṁkhyas, since you admit the doctrine of the causality of pra- dhāna,—the author replies here In ordinary experience, a non-sentient object, having no connec- tion with a sentient principle, can have no meaning, incapable as it is of giving rise to an effect Never does a lump of clay assume the form of a pot by itself. Similarly, pradhāna, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, having no connection with a sentient principle and itself non-sentient, is not able to give rise to effects; hence, it is simply meaningless. Pradhāna, taught in the Upanisads, on the other hand, "has a mean- ing". That has a meaning which serves the 'meaning', or the purpose, of giving rise to all effects, beginning with the mahat and ending with a tuft of grass. Why? "On account of (its) dependence on Him" ¹ That which is dependent on Him, i e. on Brahman or Lord Vāsudeva, sentient and the Supreme Cause, is 'tad-adhīna', viz. pradhāna, the state of being that (tad-adhīnatva), on account of that (tad-adhī- natvāt). But the dependence of pradhāna on Brahman is not like the dependence of atoms on Īśvara, as held by the logicians, but is due to the relation between a power and the possessor of the power,² as established by the scriptural text like: 'The own power of the Deity, hidden by his own qualities' (Śvet. 1 3) and so on. The scriptural texts, establishing pradhāna as taught in the Upaniṣads, have been quoted above.³ COMPARISON Bhāskara He gives two alternative explanations of the sūtra, the first of which tallies with the explanation given by Nimbārka. The second is as follows: 'But (the subtle causal body is designated as) subtle (in reference to the gross body), because of the fitness (of the word "unmanifest" to denote it)' (Sūtra 2) ('Bondage and release) have meaning as dependent on it (viz. the subtle body)' (Sūtra 3) ⁴. 1 The compound 'tad-adhīnatvāt' is to be explained as follows. 2 That is, not an external and accidental relation, but an internal and essential one. 3 Vide e.g. V.K. 1.1.1. ⁴ Bh B. 1.4.3, p 73.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 4-5. 220 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.] Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different, viz '(The soul, the body and the rest) have a meaning as dependent on Him (viz. the Lord)'.¹ SŪTRA 4 ' ALSO BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATEMENT OF (ITS) BEING AN OBJECT TO BE KNOWN.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The word 'unmanifest' does not denote pradhāna of the Tān- trikas (i e. the Sāṁkhyas), "also because of the absence of any state- ment of its being an object to be known " Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason also pradhāna is not denoted by the term 'un- manifest' here. Why ? "Because of the absence of any statement of its being an object to be known." The Sāṁkhyas, incoherently prattling that salvation arises from a right discrimination between prakṛti (= matter) and puruṣa (= soul), say that with a view to the attainment of salvation, prakṛti, too, should be known by one desiring for salvation. But pradhāna is not mentioned by the Kathas as an object to be known, there being the mention of the word 'un- manifest' simply. SŪTRA 5 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (SCRIPTURE) SPEAKS (OF PRADHĀNA AS AN OBJECT TO BE KNOWN), (WE REPLY:) NO, FOR THE INTELLI- GENT SOUL (IS THE OBJECT TO BE KNOWN), ON ACCOUNT OF THE TOPIC.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that the text: 'By discerning him, who is without beginning, without end, higher than the great (mahat) eternal, one is delivered from the jaws of death' (Kaṭha 3.15 ²), "speaks" of pradhāna as an object to be known,— ¹ ŚK. B. 1.1.3., p. 514, Part 6. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B

[SŪ. 1. 4. 6. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 221 (We reply :) ‘No’. “The intelligent soul”, i.e. the Supreme Soul, is here indicated as the object to be known, He being the “topic” Vedānta-kaustubha It may be objected: The following text “speaks” of pradhāna as an object to be known, viz.. ‘What is without sound, without touch, without form, unchangeable, likewise without taste, constant, and without odour, without beginning, without end, higher than the great (mahat), eternal, by discerning that, one is delivered from the jaws of death’ (Katha 3.15). It means that ‘by discerning’, i.e. by knowing, pradhāna,—the cause of and higher than ‘the great’, i.e. than the principle mahat, the second principle called buddhi, and an effect of pradhāna,—one is delivered from the jaws of death, i.e. from the jaws of mundane existence. (We reply :) “No”, “for the intelligent soul” alone is indicated here as the object to be discerned. Why ? “On account of the topic”, i.e. because the Supreme Soul is the topic here, as evident from the texts: ‘That supreme place of Viṣṇu’ (Katha 3.9), ‘Nothing is higher than the Person’ (Katha 3.11), ‘The soul, hidden in all beings, is not manifest’ (Katha 3.12) and so on. And by the phrase: ‘Higher than the great (mahat)’, the superiority of the Supreme Soul to the individual soul,—mentioned previously in the passage: ‘Higher than buddhi is the great soul’ (Katha 3.10),—is denoted. ————— SŪTRA 6 “AND THUS THERE ARE STATEMENT AS WELL AS QUESTION ABOUT THREE ALONE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha That in this Upaniṣad, “there are statement as well as question about three”,—viz. the means, the end, and the realizing agent,—is known from a consideration of the meaning of the prior and later texts. Here, there is no room for determining a principle which is derived from inference (viz. pradhāna).

[SŪ. 1. 4. 6. 222 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] Vedānta-kaustubha Here pradhāna cannot be understood by the term 'unmanifest', since here in the Kaṭha-valli, "there is statement about three alone",— viz. the Supreme Soul, the worship of Him, and the worshipper,— as the objects to be designated, "as well as question" about them as the objects to be known, but not about pradhāna and the rest, estab- lished by the Sāṁkhya-tantra. Thus, when three boons were promised to Naciketas by Death with the words: ' "Since you have passed three days in my house without eating, O Brāhmaṇa, a guest to be saluted, salute to you, O Brāhmaṇa, may it be well with me, therefore choose three boons for each (night)' " (Kaṭha 1.9), the former asked for the propitiation of his father as the first boon thus: ' "May Gautama be tranquil-minded, well-disposed, with anger appeased towards me, O Death! May he cheerfully greet me, when dismissed by you,— thus I choose as the first boon among the three' " (Kaṭha 1.10) Then, being granted the propitiation of his father with the words: ' "Aud- dālaka Āruni, dismissed by me ¹, will be cheerful as before, he will sleep happily at nights, with his anger appeased' " (Kaṭha 1.11) and so on, he asked for the knowledge of fire, called Naciketas, and a means to salvation, thus: ' "You know, O Death, the heavenly fire; tell it to me, who has faith. Those who live in the heaven-world partake of immortality—this I ask as the second boon' " (Kaṭha 1.13). The construction of the above text is as follows: 'O Death!' 'You know', i.e. remember and know, the 'heavenly fire', i.e. the fire which leads to salvation. So 'tell that to me', desirous as I am of salvation. I choose as the second boon that knowledge of the fire, whereby 'those who live in the heaven-world', i.e. those to whom belong the heaven-world, viz. the world to be approached by the freed souls through the path beginning with light as stated in the fourth chapter ², or the Vedāntins, 'partake of', i.e. attain, 'immortality' or salvation. Here the word 'heaven' applies to salvation equally, this being well-known from other texts as well, such as, 'The world of heaven is a golden sheath, covered with light', 'The knowers of Brahman go to Brahman, to the world of heaven' (Bṛh. 4.4.8 ³) ¹ That is, commanded by me. Vide Ś.B on Kaṭha: 'Matprasṛṣṭaḥ mayā anujñātaḥ san'. ² Vide Br. Sū. 4.3.1 et seq. ³ Correct quotation: 'Tena dhīrāḥ apiyanti brahma-vidaḥ svargaṁ lokam'. Vide Bṛh 4.4.8, p. 237.

[SŪ 1. 4. 6. ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 223 and so on. Then, having obtained the knowledge of the fire, taught thus · ‘ “I tell it to you, learn it from me, knowing the heavenly fire, O Naciketas ! The attainment of the infinite world, and the support’ ” (Kaṭha 1 14) and so on, he,—by means of a question regarding the real nature of salvation, characterized by the attainment of the Supreme Soul, the highest end of men,—asked, as the third boon, about the real nature of the object to be attained, the real nature of the attainer and the real nature of meditation, the means, thus: “ ‘When a man is dead there is this doubt, some saying that he is, others that he is not. This may I know, taught by you, this is the third among the boons’ ” (Kaṭha 1.20) Thus, when the real nature of salvation was asked thus, the reply given by Yama, preceded by an examination of Naciketas's fitness for that teaching, was as follows: “ ‘Him, who is difficult to be seen, who is hidden, who has entered within, who is hidden in the cave and who dwells in the abyss, by knowing Him as God through the knowledge of the Yoga relating to the soul, a wise man discards joy and sorrow’ ” (Kaṭha 2 12) Having been thus taught, in a general manner, Naciketas with a view to understanding clearly the real nature of the object to be attained, indicated by the word ‘God’, the real nature of the means, viz. knowledge, demonstrated by the phrase ‘by knowing’, and the real nature of the attainer, demonstrated by the words ‘wise man’, once more asked about meditation, different from means like merit and demerit, thus: “ ‘Different from the right, different from the non-right’ ” (Kaṭha 2.14); about the object to be approached, not limited by time, thus “ ‘Different from what has been done and what has not been done, different from what has been and what will be’ ” (Kaṭha 2.14); and also about the attainer, as this latter question is a question about the attainer, the sentient being as well, the latter, too, being eternal and included among the objects to be attained.¹ Or else, this text is concerned with a question about the object to be approached. Like the co-ordination of the two words ‘different’, mentioned in the text “ ‘Different from the right, different from non- right’ ” (Kaṭha 2.14), there is also a co-ordination between the two words ‘different’, mentioned subsequently, and so in this question

¹ That is, the last portion of Kaṭha 2 14 is a question about both Brahman, the object to be attained, and the individual soul, the attainer, since the latter, too, is eternal and an object to be attained like the former.

[sū. 1. 4. 6. 224 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] about the object to be approached, the approaching agent and of the means too have been included; and hence really no less than three questions were asked ¹ Then, having praised the pranava by way of demonstrating Brahman; having depicted the real nature of the attainer, denoted by the praṇava, and the real nature of the means, denoting the pranava; and having taught the pranava once more, Yama taught the real nature of the attainer, in the passage: ‘ “A wise man is neither born, nor dies. He has not arisen from anything, has not become anything. Unborn, eternal, constant is this ancient one, who is not killed when the body is killed” ’ (Katha 2.18); the real nature of the object to be attained, in the passage beginning: ‘ “Smaller than the small, greater than the great is the soul placed in the cave (i e heart) of this creature. Him one who is free from active will sees, freed from sorrow, through the grace of the Creator, (and) the glory of the soul” ’ (Katha 2 20), and ending: ‘ “Who knows thus” ? ’ (Katha 2.25), and meditation that is of the form of devotion, in the middle in the passage: ‘ “This soul is not attainable by the study of the Veda” ’ (Katha 2.23) and so on. Then, having stated that the Supreme Soul is easily attainable ¹ The entire passage is. ‘Anyatra dharmād anyatra adharmād anyatra asmāt kṛtākṛtāt. Anyatra bhūtāc ca bhavyāc ca yat tat paśyasi tad vada’ (Kaṭha 2 14). The author is here trying to show that this is not a question about a single thing, but about three different things, viz Brahman, the individual soul, and the means to salvation. He offers two explanations. (a) The portion: ‘Different from the right and different from the non- right’ refers to the means, viz. knowledge, different from ordinary merit and demerit. And, the portion: ‘Different from what has been done and what has not been done, different from what has been and what will be’ refers equally to Brahman and the individual soul, to both of whom, who are eternal, the above description fittingly applies. Hence the above question means: Tell me about (1) the means, (2) the individual soul and (3) Brahman. (b) The whole text is really a question about Brahman, but includes questions about the other two as well. Thus, the portion ‘different from the right . .’ means ‘who is different from the means’; and the portion ‘different from what has been done . . . ’ means, ‘who is different from the individual soul’. Hence the above question means: Tell me about (1) Brahman, who is different from (2) the means and (3) the individual soul. As such it is really a question about the last two as well.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 7. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 225 by the individual soul,—since the Person worshipped and the wor- shipper have entered into the same cave (Kaṭha 3.1 ¹),—and the mode of worship, as well as the attainment of the place of Viṣṇu by the worshipper, in the passage which begins: '"Know the soul to be a lord of chariot"' (Kaṭha 3.3), and ends. '"This the wise declare"' (Kaṭha 3 14), he concluded with the words: '"Invisible"' (Kaṭha 3.15) and so on. Hence, this Upaniṣad contains a statement about the three alone as the objects to be known, as well as a question about them; there is no reference to pradhāna, established by the Tantra, (viz the Sāṁkhyas). SŪTRA 7 "AND AS IN THE CASE OF THE GREAT" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Just as, although the word 'great' (mahat) has been applied by the Sāṁkhyas to the second principle called 'buddhi', yet it is found applied elsewhere as well in Vedic texts like, 'I know this great Person' (Vj S. 18 12 ²; Śvet. 3.8),—so the word 'unmanifest' (avyakta) may refer to the body. Vedānta-kaustubha Just as the word 'great', mentioned in the Veda, is applied to the individual soul and to Brahman,—as in the passages. 'Higher than intellect is the great soul' (Kaṭha 3.10), 'The soul which is great and all-pervading' (Kaṭha 2.22, 4.4) and so on,—and not to the second principle, called buddhi, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, and cannot be applied elsewhere even by a hundred Sāṁkhyas, so it is established that the word 'unmanifest' as well, being mentioned in the Veda, does not apply to pradhāna, but denotes the body. Here ends the section entitled 'What is derived from inference' (1). ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 1.2.11-12. ² P 857, line 10. Ś, Bh. 15

[SŪ. 1. 4 8. 226 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 2.] Adhikarana 2: The section entitled 'The cup'. (Sūtras 8-10) SŪTRA 8 " (THE WORD 'UNBORN' DOES NOT DENOTE THE SĀṂKHYA PRAKṚTI) ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SPECIFICATION, AS IN THE CASE OF THE CUP." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On the prima facie view, viz. Let prakṛti, mentioned in the sacred text: 'One unborn female (ajā)' (Śvet 4 5 ¹), be the one established in (the Sāṃkhya) Smṛti, the author indicates the right conclusion. The unborn one, mentioned in the sacred text, must have Brahman for its soul ², because there is no specification guaranteeing the prima facie view ³, as in the case of the cup, mentioned in the sacred text. 'There is a cup with its mouth below' (Bṛh 2 2.3 ⁴). Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, it has been shown that in the Kaṭha-vallī pradhāna, which is not mentioned in the Veda, is not denoted by the term 'unmanifest', as it, through denoting the cause, viz pradhāna which is mentioned in the Veda, denotes its effect, viz. the body It has also been shown that as pradhāna has Brahman for its soul, the text, thereby, refers to Brahman In a like manner, it is being shown now that the text about the unborn one, too, refers to Brahman alone. In the Mantropaniṣad of the Śvetāśvataras, we find the following: 'By an unborn female (ajā),⁵ red, black and white, bringing forth manifold offspring of a like nature, there lies an unborn male (aja)⁶, enjoying. Another unborn male (aja) leaves her who has been en- joyed' (Śvet. 4.5). A doubt arises, viz. whether in this sacred text prakṛti, established by the Sāṃkhya-smṛti, is recognized by the term 'unborn one' (ajā), or whether the meaning of the sacred text

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² I.e. be dependent on Brahman. ³ I.e. There is nothing here to guarantee us in selecting pradhāna of the opponents as the unborn one ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B ⁵ 'Ajā' means a she-goat, too, cf. Ś.B. 1.4.10, p. 404 ⁶ 'Aja' means a he-goat also.

[SŪ 1. 4. 8. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 227 is prakṛti, having Brahman for its soul On the prima facie view, viz The 'unborn one', etymologically derived as 'one who is not born', self-supporting; independently bringing forth, by nature, offspring of a like nature; consisting in the three guṇas; the cause of the distinction between bondage and release; and admitted by the Sāṃkhyas, should be understood to be mentioned by the sacred text as well. We reply: The 'unborn one', which has Brahman for its soul, is mentioned by the sacred text. Why? "On account of non- specification", i.e. because there is no special circumstance for under- standing pradhāna which is derived from inference. Our (i e. Upaniṣadic) (prakṛti), too, is unborn. Since a scriptural text is authori- tative only in reference to its own explicit meaning, i.e. only in refer- ence to what it actually states, a self-supporting one is not recognized here, because the word 'self-supporting' is found nowhere, and also because it is impossible for a non-sentient object to have an independent existence. An example illustrating the absence of any specification, such as. 'This is so', with regard to a common term, is given in the words "As in the case of a cup". In the text: 'There is a cup with its mouth below, and bottom above' (Bṛh. 2.2.3), the word 'cup' (camasa) conveys only the idea of an implement used in eating, in accordance with the etymology (A 'camasa' is that) whereby one drinks (camyate anena), and so no accurate specific determination, that a cup (camasa) is such, is possible, on account of non-specification, —(the marks of) having the mouth below and the rest being possible elsewhere too ¹ Similarly, in the sacred text under discussion also, there can be no specifying out that this prakṛti, simply because it is unborn, is the one established by the Sāṃkhya-smṛti.

¹ I.e in the above text about the 'ajā', there are no special marks which justify us in selecting out the Sāṃkhya prakṛti here out of other possible meanings of the term 'ajā', just as in the text about the 'camasa', there are no special marks for fixing what exactly a camasa denotes here, until we are told specifically in the complementary passage that it denotes the head.