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

[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.

228 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 4. 9. ADH. 2 ] SŪTRA 9 “ BUT (THE UNBORN ONE IS) THAT WHICH HAS LIGHT (I.E. BRAH- MAN) FOR ITS BEGINNING (I.E. CAUSE), FOR THUS SOME READ.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that in the sacred text about the cup (camasa), it is known from the complementary text: ‘It is the head’ (Bṛh. 2.2.3) that the cup is the head ; now what is the convincing reason for understanding a particular meaning in the sacred text about the unborn one ?— We reply: That of which “light”, ie Brahman, is the “begin- ning”, i.e. cause, is here denoted by the sacred text about the unborn one, for “thus” alone “some read”, viz. ‘From him arose Brahma, name, form and food’ (Muṇḍ 1.1.9). Vedānta-kaustubha Just as from the complementary passage: ‘This is the head, for there is a cup with its mouth below’ (Bṛh 2.2.3), it is known that nothing but the head is the cup, so there is no ground here for specifying out the unborn one, established by the Sāṁkhyas. On the contrary, that unborn one which has Brahman for its soul is to be understood in the sacred text about the unborn one (Śvet. 4.5), on the ground of prior and later texts,—so holds the author. The term “but” implies certainty. Prakṛti, “which has light for its beginning”, is to be understood definitely in the sacred text about the unborn one The compound: “which has light for its beginning” means: That of which the ‘beginning’, i.e. the instituting cause, is ‘light’, i.e. Brahman, celebrated in scriptural texts like: ‘That the gods worship as the light of lights’ (Bṛh. 4.4.16), ‘Now the light which shines higher than this heaven’ (Chānd. 3.13.7) and so on,—i.e. it should be understood to be that which has Brahman for its soul. In the Veda, the peculiar nature, qualities and the rest of Brahman alone being specially determined, no other topic has been dealt with; and hence, that alone which has Brahman for its cause is to be understood. The sense is Beginning: ‘The speakers of Brah- man say: “what is the cause”?’ (Śvet 1.1) and so on, and rejecting the views of those who take time to be the first cause, of the Bauddhas, the Mīmāṁsakas, the Jains and the logicians, suggested in the passage.

[sū. 1. 4. 9. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 229 'Time, nature, destiny, accident' (Śvet. 1 2), the text goes on: 'Those, following meditation and concentration, saw God's self-power, hidden by His own qualities' (Śvet. 1 3). On account of this intro- ductory text, in the sacred text about the unborn one (Śvet. 4 5), that unborn one alone which has been established by the Veda and which a power of Brahman,—the cause of the Universe and denoted by words like 'light' and the rest,—is to be understood, since subse- quently also in the passages: 'From this, the Māyin creates this universe, and in it the other is bound up with Māyā' (Śvet 4.9), 'But let one know prakṛti to be Māyā, and the Great Lord to be the Māyin' (Śvet. 4.10), 'The One, who rules over every source' (Śvet. 4 11) and so on, that alone which has Brahman for its soul is estab- lished. For that very reason, it is declared in the same Upaniṣad that although this, as a power, is different from the possessor of powers, yet it is non-different from Brahman, because of having no existence and activity apart from the possessor of powers, thus: 'On knowing the enjoyer, the object enjoyed and the Mover, all has been said, this is the three-fold Brahman' (Śvet. 1.12). Here, the enjoyer is the individual soul, denoted by the term 'higher prakṛti'; the object enjoyed is the non-sentient in its causal and effected states, denoted by the term 'lower prakṛti', and the Mover is the Highest Person, possessing the two prakṛtis, and denoted by the term 'Brahman'. Thus, the phrase: 'All is this Brahman' establishes the non-difference of Brahman and the two prakṛtis, the objects to be controlled,—since the existence and activity of the latter two depend on their Controller, —in spite of there being a difference of nature between them and the Lord. With a view to confirming that unborn one which is mentioned in the Veda, by that very Veda, the author establishes this once more in the words: "For thus some read"; that means, because thus some schools, i.e the Ātharvaṇikas, "read" in the Muṇḍakopaniṣad that this unborn one has Brahman for its soul: 'From him arose Brahmā, name, form and food' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9); and because it is declared by the Lord Himself, in the passage: '"My womb is the great Brahman. In it I place the germ"' (Gītā 14.3). In the Taittirīyaka, too, having introduced Brahman in the passage: 'Smaller than the small' (Mahā- nār. 6.3 ¹), having, then, designated the origin of the entire universe, ¹ This verse occurs also in Kaṭha 2.20 and Śvet. 3 20.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 10. 230 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 2 ] implied by the vital-breath, in the passage. ‘Seven vital breaths arise from him’ (Mahānār. 8 4), the text goes on to read after that ‘By an unborn female, red, white and black, bringing forth manifold offspring of a like nature, lies an unborn male, enjoying. Another unborn male discards her, who has been enjoyed’ (Mahānār 9 2) And since this sacred text is to be taken as referring to prakṛti, which has Brahman for its soul, and since here, too, the same must inevitably be the case, that prakṛti alone which has Brahman for its soul is the object to be established by the sacred text about the unborn one. COMPARISON Śaṁkara The interpretation of ‘jyotir-upakramā’ different, viz. ‘(The unborn one is) the beginning (i.e. the material cause) of light (i.e. of the four kinds of material objects, consisting in light, i.e. fire, water, and so on)’.¹ SŪTRA 10 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF THE FASHIONING (OF THE UNIVERSE), THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION, AS IN THE CASE OF THE HONEY (-MEDITATION)” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha No contradiction is involved in taking one and the same substra- tum of qualities as unborn and having, at the same time, Brahman for its material cause. On account of the teaching of the creation of the universe from Brahman, the cause of the world and possessing subtle powers, both fit in, “as in the case of the honey-meditation”. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. How can an unborn one be something generated, the author replies: The word “and” is for disposing of the objection. There is no contradiction in taking an unborn one as something generated. Why? “On account of the teaching of fashioning.” The word “fashioning” ¹ Ś.B. 1.4 9, p. 402.

[sū. 1. 4. 10. ADH. 2] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 231 means making or creation, on account of the teaching of that ¹, i.e. on account of the teaching of the creation of the universe from Brah- man, possessing subtle powers, in the passage : ‘From this, the Māyin creates this universe’ (Śvet 4 9). The unmanifest prakṛti, subtle in form and a power of Brahman, is said to be unborn because of being non-different from Brahman as His power That very same prakṛti, emanated from the possessor of powers or Brahman and abiding in the form of effects, is said to have Brahman for its beginning or cause, and hence there is no contradiction Here the author states a parallel case in the words. “ As in the case of the honey-meditation ” In the honey-meditation,² which begins ‘Verily, this sun is the honey of the gods’ (Chānd 3 1 1), in the concluding text: ‘Then, having risen up from thence, it will neither rise nor set, it will remain alone in the middle’ (Chānd 3.11.1), the very same thing, which in its causal state abides in a subtle form and is not, as such, designable as honey, is, in its effected state, imagined to be the honey, enjoyable by gods like Vasu and the rest, and to be possessed of rising and setting, without giving rise to any contradiction Similarly, the very same eternally existent prakṛti is designated by the sacred text in its causal form in relation to the bondage and release of the eternally existent individual soul. Here, the individual soul, indicated by the term: ‘unborn one’ (ajā),—eternal by nature, carried away by the current of beginningless karmas, and hence devoid of a true knowledge of the real nature of itself or of the Supreme Being,—having identified itself through nescience with the bodies, such as of men, gods and the rest which are the evolutes of prakṛti, lies by, enjoying sounds and the rest, the parts of prakṛti; such a one, devoid of the bliss of Brahman, is said to be ‘bound’. But one, who having attained by chance the grace of the Lord through humbleness and the like, and having attained the bliss of Brahman by means of the repetition of the means,—‘hearing’ (śravaṇa) and the rest of the Vedānta,—learnt from a holy spiritual preceptor, discards prakṛti, is said to be ‘freed’. If in accordance with the etymology: ‘An unborn one (ajā) is one that is not born’, it is said that the unborn one is not prakṛti, eternally existent and having Brahman for its soul, then the conventional dis- tinction between the bondage and release of the created souls cannot ¹ This explains the compound: ‘kalpanopadeśāt’. ² Vide V.K. 1.3.31–33. See footnote 1, p. 193.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 11. 232 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.] be explained by the non-sentient pradhāna, devoid of any connection with Brahman. Hence it is established that the unborn one, men- tioned in the sacred text, has Brahman for its soul. Here ends the section entitled ‘The cup’ (2) COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different: viz ‘On account of the teaching of an imagination (i.e. a metaphor); there is no contradiction’. That is, the word ‘ajā’ here does not stand for one who is literally unborn, but simply metaphorically represents prakṛti, the source of all things, as a she-goat, just as the sun, though not really honey, is metapho- rically represented as such in the Chāndogya ¹ Adhikarana 3. The section entitled ‘The collection of number’. (Sūtras 11—13) SŪTRA 11 “NOT ON ACCOUNT OF THE COLLECTION OF NUMBER EVEN, ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERSITY, AND ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “Even on account of the collection of number” in the text ‘In whom the five people and the ether are based’ (Bṛh. 4 4 17 ; Śat. Br. 14.7 2.19 ²), it is not to be said that the twenty-five principles, begin- ning with pradhāna, are based on Scripture, so what dispute can there be regarding the knowability of one pradhāna from Scripture? ³ Why? “On account of diversity,” i e because the objects which are based on Brahman, established in Scripture and denoted by the ¹ Ś.B. 1 1.10, pp. 404-5. Bh. B. 1 1 10, p. 75. Cf. Rāmānuja’s criticism of this interpretation. ² P. 1090, line 3. Ś. R, Bh, ŚK, B. ³ That is, all the twenty-five principles of the Sāṁkhyas can be known from Scripture, not to speak of pradhāna alone.

[sū. 1. 4. 11. ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 233 term ‘in whom’, are different from the objects established in the Tantra (i.e the Sāṁkhya-smṛti), since the former are found to have Brahman for their soul; “and on account of the excess” of Brahman, the support, and likewise of the ether Vedānta-kaustubha In the previous aphorism, it has been shown that the text about the unborn one, not referable to pradhāna, as admitted by the Sāṁ- khyas on the ground of texts like: ‘The self-power of the Deity’ (Śvet. 1 3), refers to Brahman on the ground that it refers to His power, viz pradhāna, as admitted by the Vedāntins In the very same manner, by showing that ¹ the text about the ‘five five-people’ refers to the vital-breath and the rest, based on Brahman, on the ground of the pronoun (‘in whom’) and so on, leading to the nulli- fication of the number admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, (viz twenty-five), the reverend author of the aphorisms is confirming his contention that pradhāna has never been mentioned in Scripture In the sixth chapter ² of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, immediately after the introduction: ‘That the gods worship as the light of lights, as life, as immortality’ (Bṛh. 4.4.16, Śat. Br. 14 7.2.20 ³), we read the following: ‘In whom the five five-people and the ether are based, him alone I, the knower, the immortal, know as the soul, the immortal Brahman’ (Bṛh. 4 4.17; Śat. Br 14.7 2.19). Here a doubt arises, viz whether by the phrase; ‘five five-people’, meaning five groups of five, the twenty-five principles, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, are denoted, or the vital-breath and the rest, five in number and called ‘five-people’ (pañca-jana). The prima facie view is as follows: We get here the twenty-five principles, mentioned in Scripture and determined more specially in the Sāṁkhya-smṛti. In the Ṣaṣṭī-saṁhitā ⁴, we read the following,—beginning: ‘Being struck ⁵ by the three kinds of sorrow, (one undertakes) an enquiry into the cause of their removal’ (Sāṁ. Kā. 1), and continuing: ‘The primal cause prakṛti is not an effect; the seven objects beginning with the mahat are causes as well as ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason. ² Ought to be fourth chapter. ³ P 1090, line 5. ⁴ That is a Sāṁkhya treatise or a saṁhitā or treatise dealing with the sixty ideas peculiar to the Sāṁkhyas. ⁵ Correct quotation: ‘abhighātāt’ which is translated here. Vide Sāṁ. Kā. 1, p. 1.

[sū. 1. 4. 11. 234 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 3.] effects; sixteen objects are effects (only), purusa is neither a cause nor an effect' (Sāṁ Kā. 3¹) With regard to it, we reply: "Not even on account of the collection of number"; The word "even" implies possibility ² In spite of the fact that the number twenty-five is found in this text, prakrti and the rest have not Scripture as their authority. Why? "On account of diversity", i.e. because the twenty-five principles, mentioned in Smṛti, cannot be arranged in five groups of five each, they being of various kinds. There can be numeration or grouping of objects only with reference to a class, a common quality and so on, e.g. when we say: 'A group of five cows', 'a group of five learned men'. But here we find no common cause for grouping five objects under each pentad. In such cases as: 'seven are causes as well as effects', 'sixteen are effects (only)' and so on, on the other hand, there do exist causes for such groupings ³ Or, else (an alternative explanation of the word 'nānābhāvāt'), 'on account of the absence of plurality'. That is, all the objects mentioned in the Vedānta having Brahman for their soul, there is no absolute plurality, in accordance with the statement 'All this has that for its soul' (Chānd 6.8 7, 6 9 4, 6.10.3–6 16.3), and also in accordance with the teaching contained here, viz. 'In whom the five five-people and the ether are based' (Bṛh 4.4.17) The sense is that if the twenty-five principles, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, be accepted here, then, they not having Brahman for their soul, plurality will result, contradicting Scripture. Or, rather, the principles, admitted by our opponents and inde- pendent of Brahman, being distinct from those that are based on Brahman, in accordance with the text: 'In whom the five five-people' (Bṛh 4.4.17), "and on account of excess", there is not even the number twenty-five here. On the contrary, "on account of the excess", i.e. surplus, viz. the Supreme Soul, the support of all, indicated ¹ P. 4 ² I.e. even if it be possible to understand here the number intended by the Sāṁkhyas, still then the Sāṁkhya view cannot be said to be referred to here. It will be shown later that it is not really even possible to understand here the number twenty-five intended by the Samkhyas. ³ I.e. A group consists of a certain number of similar objects. But here it is impossible to divide the twenty-five Sāṁkhya principles into five groups, each containing five similar principles. Hence it cannot be said that 'five five-people' means 5×5 = 25 principles of the Sāṁkhyas.

[sū. 1. 4. 12. ADH 3.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 235 by the pronoun 'in whom', and the ether, twenty-five principles are not denoted The meaning of the text is as follows 'The gods worship that', viz Brahman. What is that? 'That which is the light of lights', i.e. of sun and the rest, 'life', i.e. the cause of the longevity of its own devotees, 'immortal', i.e. the object to be attained during the state of release, this is the sense of the introductory text (Bṛh. 4.4.16, etc). 'In whom', i.e. in Brahman, 'the five five-people are based'. The compound 'five-people' (pañca-jana) is to be explained in accordance with the rule. 'Words indicating a quarter or a number are compounded (with words in the same case ¹) to designate a name (and the compound is a tat-puruṣa)' (Pāṇ 2.1.50, SD. K 727 ²). The word 'five-people' is here understood as a name, since the meaning of the component parts (i.e. the number five) is not intended to be designated. Just as by the expression 'seven sages' each of the seven sages is denoted, so by the word 'five-people' as well. On the enquiry: How many five-people are there? the adjective 'five' is added.³ As Yājñavalkya says 'In whom the ether is based that alone is Brahman, the support of all and immortal. He who knows the Highest Self, to be approached by the freed, the soul, the cause of all existence and activity, becomes immortal, so I think. He who does not know Him does not become free' SŪTRA 12 "(THE 'FIVE-PEOPLE' ARE) THE VITAL-BREATH AND THE REST, ON ACCOUNT OF THE COMPLEMENTARY PASSAGE" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the complementary passage", viz. 'Those who know the breath of breath, the eye of eye, the ear of ear, the food of ¹ In accordance with the previous Pāṇ.-sūtra 2.1.49. ² P. 509, vol. 1. ³ I.e. the expression 'five-people' denotes the name of a certain class of beings, and the expression 'five five-people' denotes that there are five classes of such beings, just as the expression 'seven sages' denotes a certain class of sages, (i.e. stars) and the expression 'seven seven-sages' denotes that there are seven classes of such beings. What these classes of beings called 'five-people' are is indicated in the next sūtra.

[SŪ. 1 4. 13. 236 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 3 ] food, the mind of mind’ (Śat. Br. 14.7 2.21 ¹), these “five-people” (pañca-jana) are to be known as the vital-breath and the rest. Vedānta-kaustubha To the question: Who, then, are the five-people, the author replies here. “On account of the complementary passage”, viz. ‘Those who know the breath of breath, the eye of eye, the ear of ear, the mind of mind’ (Śat. Br. 14 7 2.21), the vital-breath and the rest, five in num- ber, having Brahman as their soul, and denoted by the term “five- people”, are meant by the sacred text. SŪTRA 13 “(THE NUMBER FIVE IS TO BE COMPLETED) BY LIGHT, FOOD BEING NON-PRESENT (I.E. NOT MENTIONED) (IN THE TEXT) OF SOME” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “Food being non-present (i.e. non-mentioned)”, on the other hand, in the complementary passage of the Kāṇvas ², the number five is to be completed “by light”, mentioned in the beginning. Vedānta-kaustubha Apprehending the objection, viz. Let the vital-breath and the rest, five in number, be the ‘five-people’ on the ground of the comple- mentary passage, subsequent to the sacred text about the ‘five-people’ in the Mādhyandina branch. In the Kāṇva branch, too, there is a text about the ‘five-people’. There the word ‘food’ is not found in the complementary passage. Hence, how can the number five be completed here?—the author replies here. It has been said that the Mādhyandinas complete the number five by means of food. But “there being the absence or non-mention of food” in the reading “of some”, i.e. of the Kāṇvas, the number five is completed “by light”, mentioned in the introductory passage: ‘That the gods worship as the light of lights’ (Bṛh 4.4.16),—this ¹ P. 1090, lines 5-6. Ś. R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Viz. Bṛh. 4.4.18, which omits ‘annasya annam’.

[sū. 1. 4. 14 ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 237 is the sense. Hence, it is established that pradhāna, devoid of any connection with Brahman, is not an object to be known from Scripture. Here ends the section entitled 'The collection of number' (3). Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled 'Being the cause'. (Sūtras 14-15) SŪTRA 14 "AND (THE LORD ALONE IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD) AS THE CAUSE WITH REGARD TO THE ETHER AND THE REST, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECLARATION OF (BRAHMAN) AS DESIGNATED." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Omniscient and omnipotent Brahman alone is to be understood everywhere in the texts about the creation of the ether and the rest, because the very same Brahman, "as designated" in the characteriz- ing aphorism ¹ and the following, is demonstrated "as the cause" of the ether and the rest. Vedānta-kaustubha An objection may be raised here. That view, too, which rejecting pradhāna, established by Smṛti, as the cause of the world, takes the universe to have Brahman as its sole cause, is, indeed, a doubtful one, since in the Vedānta texts, demonstrating the cause, creation is stated to be due to manifold causes. Thus, in a certain text. '"The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning"' (Chānd. 6.2.1), creation is said to be due to the existent, in a certain other text: 'From this soul the ether has arisen' (Tait. 2.1), to be due to the soul alone; again in another text, on the other hand: 'The non-existent, verily, was this in the beginning, from that, forsooth, the existent arose' (Tait. 2.7), likewise in the text: 'The non-existent alone was this in the beginning, it was existent' (Chānd. 3.19.1), to be due to the non- existent, in another text: '"What is its final goal?" "The ether" said he' (Chānd. 1.9.1), to be due to the ether; in a certain other text again: '"All these beings, verily, enter into the vital-breath"' ¹ Viz. Br. Sū. 1.1.2, etc.

[SŪ. 1. 4 14. 238 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.] (Chānd. 1.11.5), to be due to the vital-breath; and in some passages in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka 'The soul alone was this in the beginning' (Bṛh. 1 4 17), 'Brahman, verily, was this in the beginning' (Bṛh. 1 4 10), to be due to the soul and to Brahman Such being our know- ledge of the cause of the universe, it is not possible to ascertain definitely that Brahman alone is the cause of the universe. But it is possible to ascertain definitely that pradhāna, independent of Brahman, is the cause of the universe Thus, in the text 'Verily, at that time this was unmanifest (avyākṛta), it became manifest simply by name and form' (Bṛh. 1 4 7), by the word 'unmanifest' pradhāna, independent of a sentient principle, is declared to be the cause of the universe The meaning of the text is that 'this', i.e the manifest world, was 'at that time', i.e. prior to creation, 'unmanifest' and 'it', viz. pradhāna, 'became manifest by name and form' The mass of texts demonstrating the cause of the universe should be taken to be referring to pradhāna alone With a view to disposing of the above view, his Holiness is showing that the mass of texts designating the cause of the universe all refer to Brahman. The word "and" is for disposing of the objection. The word "as" implies the kind It is possible to ascertain definitely that the Highest Person alone, omnipotent, endowed with the attributes of omniscience and the rest and the Lord of all, is the Cause of the Universe. How? "On account of the declaration" of the very same Brahman, "designated" in the characterizing aphorism and the rest, "as the cause" of effects like the ether and the rest. Thus, Brahman alone, mentioned previously in the passage: 'Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite' (Taitt. 2.1), is designated as the cause in the passage: 'From him, verily' (Taitt. 2.1) and so on. Likewise, Brahman alone, indicated by the passages, ' "The existent alone, my dear"' (Chānd. 6 2 1), 'He thought: "May I be many"' (Chānd. 6 2.3), is designated in the passage 'He created light' (Chānd. 6.2.3) The same is to be understood with regard to other Upaniṣad texts too. COMPARISON Śaṃkara General import same, literal interpretation different, viz. '(Al- though there may be a conflict among the Vedānta texts) with regard

[sū. 1. 4 15. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 239 to (the order of the things created, like) the ether and the rest, (there is no conflict among them with regard to the creator,) because as (Brahman) is designated as the cause (in one Vedānta) so (He) is mentioned (in other Vedāntas too)¹ Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different. He does not begin a new adhikaraṇa here, but continues the same topic Hence the sūtra: ‘And just as on account of the declaration (i e understanding) (of Brahman) as the cause (in all the Vedānta texts) with regard to (all the effects like) the ether and the rest, (as well as in all other general texts), (pradhāna of the Sāṁkhyas is not understood, so the Sāṁkhya principles are not understood here)’. That is, just as we interpret the vague and general text ‘verily, at that time, it was unmanifest’ (Bṛh. 1 4.7) in the light of the specific text ‘The soul alone was this in the beginning’ (Bṛh. 1 4 1), and understand thereby the first text as denoting Brahman and not the Sāṁkhya unmanifest or pradhāna, so exactly, here we should interpret the vague and general text about the ‘five five-people’ (Bṛh 4.4.17, etc.) in the light of the specific passage about the vital- breath and the rest (Bṛh. 4 4 18, etc.), and understand, thereby, the ‘five five-people’ as the vital-breath and the rest, and not as the Sāṁkhya principles.² SŪTRA 15 “ON ACCOUNT OF THE DRAWING IN.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “On account of the drawing in” of Brahman. That is, the very same Brahman, mentioned previously in the passage: ‘He wished’ (Tait. 2.6 ³), is referred to in the passage: ‘The non-existent, verily’ (Tait. 2 7 ⁴) too. Similarly the very same Brahman, mentioned pre- viously in the passage: ‘The sun is Brahman’ (Chānd. 3.19.1 ⁵), is also referred to in the passage ‘The non-existent alone was this’ (Chānd. 3 19 1 ⁶). Hence, Brahman alone, who is ever existent, is denoted ¹ Ś.B 1.4.14, p. 414. ² ŚK. B. 1.1.14, p. 530, Part 6. ³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ⁴ Op cit. ⁵ Not quoted by others. ⁶ Ś, R, Bh, B.