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

[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.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 15. 240 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4 ] by the word 'non-existent', since there being no distinction of names and forms prior to creation, He has then no existence in so far as connected with these names and forms. In the same manner, what is denoted by the term 'unmanifest' in the passage: 'Verily, at that time, this was unmanifest, it became manifest simply by name and form' (Bṛh 1.4.7 ¹), is referred to in the subsequent passage as well: 'He is entered here as far as the finger-nail tips' (Bṛh. 1.4 7 ²) and so on. It is also impossible for the non-sentient pradhāna to be a controller by entering within. Hence, the unmanifest, its controller, is said to be Brahman. The sense is that in the texts, demonstrating the cause of the universe, Brahman alone, established by the defining aphorism and the rest, is to be understood,—there is not even the slightest possibility of pradhāna being so understood. Vedānta-kaustubha "On account of the drawing in" of Brahman. That is, the very same Brahman, omniscient, and creating the universe subsequent to His resolution to be many, as mentioned previously in the passage: 'He wished' (Tait. 2.6), is also referred to in the passage: 'The non- existent, verily, was this in the beginning, from that the existent arose' (Tait. 2.7). Here, Brahman as possessed of subtle powers in His causal state is denoted by the term 'non-existent',—which is but a synonym for the word 'subtle',—in contrast to Brahman as possessed of manifested powers in His effected state, fit to be denoted by the term 'existent',—which is but a synonym for the word 'gross'. In the very same manner indeed, it should be known that Brahman, mentioned previously in the passage: 'The sun is Brahman' (Chānd. 3.19.1), is referred to in the passage too: 'The non-existent alone was this in the beginning, it was existent' (Chānd. 3.19.1) In the very same manner, in the text about the unmanifest as well, it is the inner controller of the unmanifest that is denoted by the word 'unmanifest', as here the pronoun 'he' refers to Brahman, denoted by the term 'unmanifest', in the passage 'He is entered here as far as the finger- nail tips. When seeing, the eye, when hearing, the ear, when think- ing, the mind. Let one worship (Him) as the soul' (Bṛh 1.4 7). In spite of there being a separate agent of manifestation, the expression 'It became manifest (vyākriyata)' should be understood as denoting ¹ Ś, R, Bh, B. ² S, R, ŚK, B

[sū. 1. 4. 15. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 241 an 'object-agent' (i e. the reflexive passive form) Or else, the present indicative should be understood simply in the passive ¹ Hence, everywhere the cause is one and the same indeed The objections with regard to the cause are refuted in this section We shall dispose of the objections with regard to the effects, on the other hand, in the third quarter of the second chapter, under the aphorisms. 'Not the ether, because of being non-scriptural' (Br. Sū. 2 3 1) and the follow- ing Hence, it is established everywhere that the cause of the universe is Brahman alone, a sentient Being and possessed of omniscience and the rest. Here ends the section entitled 'Being the cause' (4) COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara The general purport (of the sūtras 14-15) same, but while Nim- bārka connects this adhikaraṇa more directly with the topic of the preceding part of the pāda, viz with the refutation of the Sāṃkhya view ², Śaṃkara and Bhāskara do not do so, but take it to be concerned with the general question of the concordance of all texts with regard to Brahman.³ Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different The same topic continued: 'On account of the drawing in'. That is, just as the very same Brahman, mentioned in the prior passage 'He wished' (Tait 2.6) is understood in the subsequent passage too 'The non-existent alone was this in the beginning' (Tait 2.7), because the two passages involve each other, so exactly, the 'five five-people', mentioned in the prior passage (Bṛh. 4.4.17, etc.) are understood as the vital-breath and the rest, 1 I.e. as having reference to a necessarily implied agent, as in the expression: 'The village is being approached'. Vide Ś.B. 1.4.15, p. 417. 2 This is evident from the concluding sentence of his explanation of the sūtra 15. "Na pradhāna-śaṅkā-gandho' pīti bhāvaḥ". V.P.S. 1.4.15, p. 131, K.S.S. 3 This is evident from the beginning of the adhikaraṇa 'Tatra idam aparam āśaṅkate: Na janmā-di-kāraṇatvaṃ Brahmano, Brahma-viṣayaṃ vā gati- sāmānyaṃ vedānta-vākyānāṃ pratipattum śakyam', etc. Vide Ś.B. 1.1.14, pp. 412-13, Bh. B 1.1.14, pp. 76-77. 16

242 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 1. 4. 16. ADH. 5.] mentioned in the subsequent passage (Bṛh 4 4 18, etc.), because the two passages involve each other ¹ Adhikaraṇa 5: The section entitled ‘Denoting the world’. (Sūtras 16–18) SŪTRA 16 “BECAUSE OF DENOTING THE WORLD” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha It is not to be supposed that in the text: ‘“He verily, O Bālāki, who is the maker of these persons, of whom this is the work”’ (Kauṣ. 3.9 ²), the object to be known is the person, mentioned in the Tantra (viz. in the Sāṁkhya doctrine) and the enjoyer of the fruits of merit and demerit. None but the Supreme Soul is here indicated as the object to be known. Why? Because Brahman is the topic, as known from the text: ‘“Let me declare Brahman to you”’ (Kauṣ 4 1 ³); because the word ‘work’, meaning ‘something that is done’, denotes the world which is an effect, because by the pronoun ‘this’ the world, established by the evidence of perception and the rest, is suggested; and, lastly, because the person, mentioned in the Tantra, is not the topic here. Vedānta-kaustubha The Sāṁkhyas hold that prakṛti is the agent and puruṣa the enjoyer. The impossibility of prakṛti to be the cause has been shown in various ways. Now, although it has been shown in the section regarding Pratardana ⁴ that the Kauṣītaki-brāhmaṇa texts refer to Brahman, yet by showing that the text ‘“Of whom this is the work”’ (Kauṣ. 4.19), too, refers to Brahman, the author is now disposing of the objection, viz.: the person (puruṣa), admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, is accepted by the Vedānta, on the ground of its being an enjoyer, and prakṛti, superintended by it, is the cause of the world. We read of a dialogue between Bālāki and Ajātaśatru in the Kauṣītaki-brāhmaṇa. There, a sage, called Bālāki Gārgya having ¹ Śk. B. 1.1.14, pp. 532-33, Part 6. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ³ Ś, R, Bh, B. ⁴ Vide ‘Indra-prāṇādhikaraṇa’, sūtras 1.1.29–32.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 16. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 243 promised the king Ajātaśatru ‘“Let me declare Brahman to you”’ (Kauṣ 4.1), having then designated various persons as Brahman, thus ‘“He who is the person within the sun”’ (Kauṣ. 4 3), ‘“The person within the moon”’ (Kauṣ. 4.4) and so on ¹, became silent Then, Ajātaśatru, who knew Brahman ², having condemned him with the words ‘“In vain, did you tell me”’ ³ (Kauṣ. 4.19), said: ‘“He who, verily, O Bālāki, is the maker of these persons, and ⁴ of whom this is the work, he, verily, is to be known”’ (Kauṣ. 4 19). Here a doubt arises, viz. whether puruṣa, established in the Sāṁkhya- tantra, the superintendent of prakṛti and the enjoyer, is taught here as the object to be known, or the Supreme Soul The prima facie view is as follows: It was puruṣa, unconnected with prakṛti, as estab- lished in the Tantra, that was indicated, by the royal sage, as the object to be known, because of the mention of a connection with works in the phrase ‘“and of whom this is the work”’ (Kauṣ. 4.19); because works, consisting in merit and demerit, are possible on the part of the individual soul alone, entitled to works, because a connec- tion with work is not admitted on the part of the Supreme Soul; and, because the origin of the world is due to the works of the respective enjoyers. Moreover, here in accordance with the text ‘ ‘They two went to a sleeping person’ (Kauṣ. 4.19), it was the enjoying soul alone which was demonstrated by Ajātaśatru to Bālāki. Likewise, in the passage ‘ ‘Just as a merchant enjoys with his own people, and as his own people enjoy him, so exactly this intelligent self enjoys with these selves, so exactly these selves enjoy it’ (Kauṣ. 4.20), the characteristic mark of the enjoying soul alone is found. The meaning of the text is as follows: ‘Just as a merchant’, i.e. a lord who is the chief, enjoys ‘with his own people’, i.e. with implements like servants and the rest; and ‘his own people’, i.e. the servants and the rest, ‘enjoy’ the merchant, i.e. depend on him for food and clothing, ‘so

¹ The sage wanted to teach the king about the person within the sun, that within the moon, that within the lightning, that within the cloud and so on, altogether about sixteen persons, but in each case, the king begged to be spared of the teaching, as he was already acquainted with the person in question. Finally, the king himself taught the sage about Brahman. Vide Kauṣ. 4. ² The word ‘Brahmajña’ is not really included in the text. ³ Correct quotation: ‘Mṛṣā vai khalu mā saṁvādayiṣṭhā’, in which case it would mean ‘in vain, verily, did you make me talk’. Vide Kauṣ. 4.19, p. 138 ⁴ Correct quotation ‘vā’ and not ‘ca’.

244 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 4. 16. ADH. 5.] exactly this intelligent self 'enjoys with these', i.e with the persons within the sun and the rest. And it cannot be said that since the word 'work', mentioned in the concluding text : '"Of whom this is the work"' (Kaus. 4.19) denotes action, the vital-breath, possessing the activity of motion as his substratum, mentioned in the concluding text: 'In this vital-breath alone, he becomes one' (Kaus. 4 20), is to be under- stood; but purusa, established in the Tantra and the enjoyer of the fruits of works, is not to be accepted here as the object to be known,— for the term 'vital-breath' refers to the bearer of the vital-breath or the individual soul, such a construction, viz. 'in this vital-breath', meaning 'in purusa, the bearer of the vital-breath', being possible. If, in accordance with the explanation 'In the vital-breath which is present in this, i e in the soul', the two locatives (viz. 'in this' and 'in the vital-breath') are to refer to different objects ¹, then although the word 'vital-breath' will refer to the chief vital-breath, yet as it is naturally an implement of the individual soul, none but the individual soul is the object to be established here. And hence the meaning is: 'He who is the maker', i.e. the cause, 'of these persons', i.e. of the persons dwelling in the orb of the sun and the rest, and implements of the enjoyment of the individual soul, 'and of whom this is the work', i e. merit and demerit, the cause of its being the cause ², is to be known as unconnected with prakṛti. And hence Brahman, introduced as the object to be depicted in the text : '"Let me declare Brahman to you"' (Kaus 4 1), is none but purusa, there being no proof of any God other than it. As the qualities of perceiving and the rest, belonging to the cause, are possible on its part, possessing as it does the quality of consciousness, prakṛti alone, superintended by the puruṣa, the enjoyer, is the cause of the world. (Here ends the prima facie view.) (Author's conclusion.) With regard to it, we reply: Here, the Highest Person alone, the maker of the persons, is the object to be known. Why? For the following reasons: First, the term 'work' denotes the world; and the ¹ I.e. standing in a vyadhikaraṇa relation and not in a samānādhikaraṇa relation, or in a relation of a noun and an adjective referring to the same locus, as the first explanation takes them to be. ² I.e. the works (karmas) of the soul lead to the creation of the world the sun and the rest.

[SŪ. 1 4. 16. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 245 creatorship of the world is not possible on the part of any one other than the Supreme Soul. A 'work' is what is done, i e the world, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient. Secondly, the creator- ship of the world is not possible on the part of the sentient individual soul which has entered into the world as an enjoyer, and which is never admitted to be a creator Thirdly, the creatorship of the world is impossible also on the part of prakṛti, superintended by the indivi- dual soul of little knowledge and little power In ordinary life, what little is done by non-sentient objects, like chariots and the rest superin- tended by sentient beings, is due to the sentient beings alone And, there being no purpose in rejecting the primary agent, the primary agent is none but the Supreme Being, celebrated in a mass of scriptural texts. The world, known through perception and the rest, is referred to by the pronoun 'this'. Work consisting in merit and demerit simply is not denoted by the term 'work' here. Since the sixteen persons, indicated as Brahman by Bālāki who had promised ' " Let me declare Brahman to you "' (Kauṣ. 4 1), were not really Brahman, Ajātaśatru, having condemned him who could not tell him about Brahman, thus: ' " In vain, verily, did you tell me ¹ "' (Kauṣ. 4 19), taught the Supreme Soul,—not known by the sage, and the maker of the persons indicated by him,—as the object to be known, with the words: ' " He who, verily, O Bālāki "' (Kauṣ. 4.19). Otherwise, the persons connected with works, i.e. merit or demerit, being already known to Bālāki, the teaching of them as the objects to be known would be meaningless. Hence, the word 'work' simply denotes that the universe consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient is an effect, and does not denote mere merit and demerit, or mere action This being so, the word 'this', too, has a purpose, since, referring as it does to the entire world, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient and known through the evidence of perception and the rest, it serves to preclude the supposition of its being due to a mere person. Thus, the meaning of the text ' " He who, verily, O Bālāki, is the maker of these persons "' (Kauṣ. 4.19) is as follows: O Bālāki, he who is the maker of the persons within the sun and the rest, designated by you as Brahman, and who is not the maker of the persons only, but of whom this entire universe, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, is an effect,—that Supreme Soul, the soul of ¹ For correct quotation see footnote 3, p 243.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 17. 246 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.] all, the Lord of all, is the object to be known. Here, although the persons, being included within the world, are proved to have the Supreme Soul as their cause, their separate mention is to be known for the purpose of rejecting their Brahman-hood, claimed by Bālāki.¹ SŪTRA 17 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE CHARACTERISTIC MARK OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL AND THE CHIEF VITAL-BREATH, (THE LORD IS NOT DENOTED HERE), (WE REPLY:) THAT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that on account of the characteristic mark of the individual soul, contained in the passage 'This intelligent self enjoys with these selves' (Kaus. 4.20 ²); as well as on account of the characteristic mark of the chief vital-breath, contained in the passage: 'Now, in this vital-breath alone he becomes one' (Kaus. 3.3; 4.20 ³), one of these two is to be understood, and not Brahman,— (We reply:) "that has been explained" in the section treating of Pratardana ⁴. The sense is that the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the rest have been explained there as referring to Brahman, and should be known to be so here as well. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected: On account of the characteristic mark of an individual soul, contained in the passage 'Just as a merchant enjoys with his own people, and as his own people enjoy him, so exactly this intelligent self enjoys with these selves, so exactly do these selves enjoy it' (Kaus. 4.20); as well as on account of the characteristic mark of the chief vital-breath, contained in the passages: 'Then in

¹ I.e. in the text: 'He who is the creator of these persons, of whom this is the work', the phrase 'of whom this is the work' implies that the entire universe—including the sun and the rest—is the effect of Brahman. In spite of this the persons within the sun and the rest are mentioned separately once more as the effects of Brahman, because the king wants to point out particularly that they are not Brahman, as previously alleged. ² Ś, R, ŚK. ³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. ⁴ Vide Br. Sū. 1.1.29–32.

[sū. 1. 4. 18. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 247 this vital-breath alone he becomes one’ (Kaus. 3.3; 4.20), one of these two is to be understood, and not the Supreme Soul,— (We reply) “that has been explained” in the sub-section, begin- ning with the aphorism: ‘The vital-breath, on account of intelligi- bility in that way’ (Br. Sū. 1.1.29). There, the text being ascer- tained to have Brahman for its object on the ground of the beginning and the end, the marks of the individual soul and the rest, too, have been described as referring to Him alone. In the very same manner, here, too, in the beginning, in the passage: ‘ “Let me declare Brahman to you”’ (Kaus. 4.1), Brahman is mentioned as the object. In the middle, too, in the text: ‘ “Of whom this is the work”’ (Kaus. 4.19), Brahman is mentioned as the agent of the ‘work’ or the entire universe. The end as well refers to none but Brahman, since the text: ‘He who knows thus, having overcome all evils, attains supremacy, independent rule and lordship among all beings’ (Kauṣ. 4.20), declares that excellent results pertain to His worshippers. Thus, this text being ascertained to be referring to Brahman, the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the rest, too, are to be taken as referring to Him. And, it is not to be said that there is any repetition here (of what has already been said under Br. Sū. 1.1.29–32), since that section about Pratardana does not determine the meaning of the text: ‘Of whom this is the work’ (Kaus. 4.19), which the present section does. COMPARISON Bhāskara Reading different, viz. he reads this sūtra and the next one as one sūtra.¹ ————— SŪTRA 18 “BUT JAIMINI (THINKS THAT THE MENTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL) HAS A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, ON ACCOUNT OF QUESTION AND EXPLANATION, AND THUS SOME (READ).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Jaimini thinks that the mention of the individual soul in this section has the purpose of suggesting Brahman, other than the ————— ¹ Bh. B. 1.1.17, p. 78.

[sū. 1. 4. 18. 248 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5 ] individual soul, on account of the question: " 'Where, O Bālāki, did this person lie? What did he become? Whence did he come back?' " (Kauṣ. 4 19 ¹), and on account of the reply. " 'When the sleeping person sees no dreams whatsoever, then in this vital-breath alone he becomes one' " (Kauṣ. 4 19 ²). The Vājasaneyins, too, thus record the Supreme Soul as other than the individual soul. There too, there are question and answer. The question is: " 'What did he then be- come? Whence did he return?' " (Bṛh. 2.1 16 ³), and the answer is: " 'That which is this ether within the heart, in that he lies' " (Bṛh. 2 1 17 ⁴). Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. since in the text 'In this vital-breath alone he becomes one' (Kauṣ. 4.19), entering by the individual soul is mentioned, and since the term 'vital-breath' is applied to Brahman, who alone is fit to be the substratum of the individual soul's entering, let the characteristic marks of the vital-breath refer to Brahman. But it seems very difficult to take the characteristic marks of the individual soul as referring to Brahman, since here in the passage: 'They two went to a sleeping person' (Kauṣ. 4.19), the exclusive mark of an individual soul is found,—the author replies here. The teacher Jaimini thinks that the mention of the individual soul in this section "has a different purpose", viz. the purpose of demonstrating that the Supreme Soul,—possessed of the qualities of being a support and the rest,—is different from the individual soul, possessed of the qualities of 'being the object to be supported', etc. Why? "On account of question and explanation." Thus, Ajāta- śatru, a knower of Brahman, approached a sleeping person with Bālāki, desirous of enquiring into Brahman, and called that person thus: " 'O Soma, the king' " (Kauṣ. 4 19). But when the sleeper did not hear him, Ajātaśatru thereby demonstrated the fact that enjoyer is different from the vital-breath and the rest which are not enjoyers. After that, when the sentient soul, different from those non- sentient, was awakened by the push of the stick, Ajātaśatru himself asked the following questions with a view to demonstrating Brahman once more as different from the sentient and the non-sentient: ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Op. cit. ³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ⁴ Op. cit.

[sū. 1. 4. 18. ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 249 ' "Where, O Bālāki, did this person lie ? What, verily, did he become ? Whence did he return"?' (Kaus 4.19). As Bālāki was unable to answer the question, Ajātaśatru himself replied. ' "When the sleeping person sees no dream whatsoever, then in this vital-breath alone he becomes one ; when he wakes up, . . . then from this soul all the vital-breaths proceed, each towards its place, from the vital-breaths the gods, from the gods the worlds" ' (Kaus. 4.20). On account of such question and answer the Supreme Soul, different from the individual soul, is to be understood here. The sense is this : During the period of deep sleep, the soul, having drawn forth the whole group sense-organs, and having entered into the Supreme Soul,—denoted by the term 'vital-breath' which stands in apposition with the pronoun 'this' in the text: 'In this vital-breath' (Kaus 4.19),—becomes self-abiding and tranquil. Then, when time comes, it goes out from that very vital-breath for undergoing retributive experiences. This Supreme Soul, celebrated to be the substratum of deep sleep ¹ and the rest, and different from the individual soul, is the object to be known,—such is the view of Jaimini as well. The mention of Jaimini is for the purpose of clearly indicating that the meaning stated above by us is highly commendable. "And thus some", i.e the Vājasaneyins designate the Supreme Soul as different from the individual soul, consisting of intelligence. There, too, a dialogue between Bālāki and Ajātaśatru has been intro- duced, containing a question and an answer. The question is: ' "He who consists of intelligence, what did he become then? Whence did he come ?"' (Brh. 2.1.16); and the answer is: ' "That which is the ether within the heart, in that he lies"' (Brh. 2 1.17 ²). That the ether is the Supreme Soul has been established under the section, concerned with the text: 'Small is the ether within that' (Chānd. 8.1.1 ³). This difference between the individual soul and the Lord has been demonstrated before by the author of the aphorisms in many aphorisms like: 'And on account of the designation of difference' (Br. Sū 1.1.18 ⁴), etc. Incidentally it is confirmed here too as being ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 3.2 7. ² The Bālāki Ajātaśatru-samvāda in Brh. 2.1 is exactly similar to that in Kaus 4, only the latter makes no mention of the ether. ³ Vide Dahara-adhikarana, Br. Sū. 1.3.14-24. ⁴ Vide also Br Sū. 1.1.22, 1 2.4, 1 2 21, 1.2.23, 1.3 5, etc. (The num- bering is Nimbārka's.)

[SŪ. 1. 4. 18. 250 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] held by Jaimini as well, with the words. “But Jaimini (thinks that the mention of the individual soul has a different purpose”. With a view to showing that it is confirmed all the more strongly as being based on the Veda, it is said “On account of question and explana- tion”, and for suggesting that it is celebrated in all the Upaniṣads, it is said “and thus some” The non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman, too, has been mentioned before,¹ and we shall speak of it carefully later on.² Hence, none but the Supreme Soul is taught as the object to be known. It is established that He alone is the cause of the origin and the rest of the universe, and not puruṣa, established in the Tantra, or pradhāna, superintended by it. Here ends the section entitled ‘Denoting the world’ (5). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara General import same, only while Nimbārka, as before, connects this adhikaraṇa more directly with the topic of the preceding part of the pāda, viz. refutation of the Sāṁkhya view, Śaṁkara and Bhāskara do not do so, but take it to be concerned with the general question of the concordance of all texts with regard to Brahman.³ Śrīkaṇṭha General import same, but he too does not take this adhikaraṇa as concerned with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, but with the question of the difference between the individual soul and Brah- man.⁴ Hence according to him, the problem here is whether the ¹ Vide V.K. 1.1 1, p. 11, 1.1 7, p. 25, 1.2.6, p 52, etc. (Page references are to the K.S.S. ed.) ² Vide e.g. VK 1.4.20, p. 139, 1.4.21, p. 140, 2.1.16, p. 151, etc. (K.S.S. ed.) ³ This is evident from the fact that while according to Nimbārka the question is whether in Kauṣ. 4.19 the object to be known is the Sāṁkhya puruṣa or the Supreme Soul (vide V.P S. 1.3.16), according to Śaṁkara and Bhāskara, the question is whether in the same text the object to be known is the vital-breath or the Supreme Soul. Vide Ś.B. 1.4.16, p. 418; Bh. B. 1.4.16, p. 78. ⁴ Punar api jīvāt parameśvarasya anya-bhāvam upapādayati. ŚK. B. 1.4.16, Intro., p. 535, Part 6.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 19. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 251 object to be known in Kauṣītaki text (4.19) is the individual soul or the Supreme Soul, and so on ¹ Adhikaraṇa 6. The section entitled ‘The con- nection of texts’ (Sūtras 19–22) SŪTRA 19 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONNECTION OF TEXTS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text. ‘ “O! the self, verily, should be seen” ’ (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6 ²), the Supreme Soul should be understood as the object to be seen, “on account of the connection” of the text with Him alone. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, by showing once more the concordance of the scriptural texts with regard to Brahman, the author is disposing of puruṣa, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas. We find the following text in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka under the Maitreyī-brāhmaṇa, beginning: ‘He said: “O, not for the love of the husband, verily, is a husband dear, but for the love of the soul is a husband dear” ’ (Bṛh 2.4.5; 4.5.6), and continuing : ‘ “O, the self, verily, should be seen, should be heard, should be meditated on” ’ (Bṛh 2.4.5; 4.5.6). Here the doubt is, viz. whether the soul, the twenty-fifth principle of the Sāṁkhyas, is taught as the object to be seen, or the Highest Person, Lord Vāsudeva? What is reasonable here? The prima facie objector thinks: The soul, the twenty-fifth principle established by the Tantra, is taught as the object to be seen and so on, as it is possible for it alone to be the object of the acts of perception and the rest, as it is impossible for Brahman, admitted by the defendant, to be properly an object of an act, He being unlimited by so muchness; as the connection of the Self with the dearness of husband, wife, son and the rest, mentioned in the beginning, is possible on the part of only puruṣa, mentioned by the Tantra; as in the middle, too, in the text : ‘ “This great Being, infinite and endless, is but a ¹ Op. cit., pp. 536 et seq. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1 4. 19. 252 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.] mass of intelligence Having risen from those elements, one vanishes into them alone. After death, there is no consciousness"' (Brh. 2.4 12, 4.5.13), purusa is laid down as subject to transmigratory existence as connected with origin and destruction—purusa, which is mentioned in the Tantra, the very one, which dwells within the body as indicated by the word 'this', which is indicated by the word 'great being' with a view to making its distinction from the material beings clear, which is indicated by the word 'infinite' with a view to making its illimitable- ness in time clear, which is endless, i.e innumerable, and which is a mass of intelligence, and as, finally, towards the end as well, the text. '"O, whereby one should know the knower"?' (Brh 2.4.14; 4.5.15), declares it to be a knower. With regard to it, we point out the right conclusion None but the Highest Person is here taught as the object to be seen and so on. Why? Because the text has connection with the Supreme Soul alone, i.e because from a consideration of the beginning and the end, the connection of the group of texts, intending to convey the same meaning, as referring to the Supreme Soul is known Thus, when from Yājñavalkya's statement, viz. '"Of immortality, however, there is no hope through wealth"' (Brh. 2 4.2; 4 5 3). Maitreyī came to know definitely that work, to be accomplished by means of wealth, is not a means to salvation,—as well-known from other scriptural texts too, viz. 'Frail indeed are these boats of sacrifices' (Mund 1 2 7), 'What is not made is not gained through what is made' (Mund. 1.2.12) and so on,—she, desiring for salvation, asked about the means to salvation, thus. '"What shall I do with that whereby I may not be immortal? Whatever, Sir, you know, tell me that"' (Brh. 2 4.3; 4.5 4) Thus asked, Yājñavalkya taught the Supreme Soul alone, the soul of all, as the object of the acts of seeing and the rest, thus. '"O, the self, verily, should be seen"' (Brh. 2.4.3, 4.5.4), salvation being possible through the meditation on Him alone. The knowledge of all, too, is possible through the knowledge of Him. In the end, too, the attribute of 'being the self of all', mentioned in the passage '"All this is the soul"' (Brh 2.4.6, 4.5.7), is a charac- teristic mark of the Supreme Soul alone.

[sū. 1. 4. 20. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 253 SŪTRA 20 "(THE BEGINNING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS) A MARK OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INITIAL PROPOSITION, ĀŚMARATHYA (THINKS SO) " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha To the question. Why, then, is there the beginning with the individual soul? we reply the fact that the Supreme Soul is designated by a word denoting the individual soul,—the latter being non-different from the former as His effect,—is a convincing proof "of the estab- lishment of the initial proposition", viz that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all. So "Āśmarathya" thinks. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected. The individual soul alone is apprehended as connected with the dearness of husband and the rest in the beginning, in the passage. ‘"O, not for the love of the husband, verily, is a husband dear, but for the love of the soul is a husband dear’" (Bṛh 2 4.5, 4.5.6) and so on; as well as connected with origin and destruction in the middle, in the passage: ‘"Having arisen from these beings, one vanishes into them alone. After death there is no consciousness’" (Bṛh. 2 4 12; 4.5.13),— (We reply:) True. Still, by the term "individual soul" the Supreme Soul is to be understood here. No such objection can be raised in view of the fact that He, being the cause of all, can be denoted by all words The author is showing this with the approval of another teacher In accordance with the text ‘From whom, verily, all these elements arise’ (Tait 3.1), the individual soul, too, entered into the elements, is reckoned among the effects, and Brahman is the cause. These two being the effect and the cause, there is, undoubtedly, a primary difference between them. Thus the texts designating duality are correct Since the effect is non-different from the cause, being born from it and so on, non-difference between the two, too, is equally a fact. Thus, the texts designating non-duality, too, are correct. In this way, both the kinds of texts being authoritative in their own senses, there is a natural relation of difference and non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman. Hence, it is possible for words denoting the effects to denote the causes as well, just as in the

[SŪ. 1. 4. 21. 254 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 6.] case of the pot and the clay, standing in the relation of effect and cause, the word 'pot' refers to the clay as well. This being so, the initial proposition too, viz. that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all, is established,—such is the view of Āśmarathya. The meaning of the words of the aphorism is as follows. This, really, is "a mark" or a convincing proof "of the establishment of the initial proposition", viz. that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all. What mark? Listen ¹ The individual soul being non-different from the Supreme Soul as His effect, by the word "individual soul" the Supreme Soul is designated,—so the teacher Āśmarathya thinks SŪTRA 21 "ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH A CONDITION OF ONE WHO IS ABOUT TO DEPART, AUḌULOMI (THINKS SO)" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On account of the union of the individual soul, about to depart from the body, with Brahman, Brahman is denoted by a word denoting the individual soul,—so Auḍulomi thinks. Vedānta-kaustubha "On account of such a condition," i e. on account of the union of the individual soul with the Supreme Soul,—of the soul which "is about to depart" from the aggregation of the body and the sense- organs, in accordance with the text: 'As the flowing rivers disappear into the sea, leaving names and forms, so a knower, freed from name and form, attains the celestial Person, higher than the high' (Chānd. 8.3.4), which is endowed with the hearing, the thinking, the meditation and the direct vision of Brahman; and which is well-known to be unborn from the scriptural and Smṛti texts like. 'A wise man is neither born, nor dies' (Kaṭha 2.18), 'This is unborn, eternal, constant' (Gītā 2.20), i.e. on account of its attaining the state of Brahman, the Supreme Soul is denoted by a term denoting the individual soul,—so thinks the teacher Auḍulomi. On this view, there is a difference between the individual soul and Brahman during the soul's state of bondage, and non-difference during its state of

[SŪ. 1. 4. 22. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 255 release. In this manner, there are both difference and non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman. Thus, the meaning of the text is difference and non-difference,—such is the view of the teacher Auḍulomi. Such difference and non-difference are admitted by the reverend Auḍulomi for the benefit of the dull-witted. But really even during the state of bondage, the individual soul, which is atomic in size and possesses little knowledge, though different from Brahman who is all-pervasive, non-deviating in nature and omniscient, is yet non-different from Him, since it has no separate existence and activity,—just as a leaf is non-different from the tree, the ray from the lamp, the attribute from its substratum and the sense-organs from the vital-breath. Likewise, though in release it is non-different from Him, it having no separate existence and activity, at the same time, it is undoubtedly different from Him, in accordance with the text: ‘It is completed in its own form alone’ ¹ (Chānd. 8.3.4). Otherwise, the imperishableness of the respective natures of both must come to be jeopardized. The view of Āśmarathya, too, should be known to be the same. COMPARISON The commentators give different meanings of the word ‘evaṁ bhāvāt’. According to Śaṁkara and Bhāskara it means ‘on account of attaining identity with the Supreme Soul’; ² according to Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha, ‘on account of attaining the state of the Supreme Soul’; ³ and according to Baladeva, ‘on account of becoming dear to all, etc.’ ⁴ SŪTRA 22 “ON ACCOUNT OF ABIDING, SO KĀŚAKRTSNA.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “On account of the abiding” of the Supreme Lord,—celebrated in the passage: ‘Entered within, the ruler of men’ (Tait. Ār. 3.11.1, 2 ⁵) 1 ‘Eva’ is not included in the original text. Vide Chānd. 8.3 4, p. 421. 2 ‘Paramātmaikyopapatteḥ.’ Ś B. 1.4.21, p. 425, Bh. B. 1.4.21, p. 81. 3 ‘Paramātma-bhāvāt.’ Śrī. B 1.4.21, p. 394, Part 1, Madras ed. Śk. B. 1.4.21, p. 549, Part 6. 4 G B 1.4.21 5 P. 181. R.

[sū. 1. 4. 22. 256 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.] and so on,—in the individual soul as the controller, in the beginning and in what follows, by a term denoting the object to be controlled the controller is understood—so thinks Kāśakrtsna. Vedānta-kaustubha "On account of the abiding" of the Supreme Soul in the individual soul,—an object to be controlled by Him,—as its soul, in accordance with the texts: 'He who abiding in the soul is other than the soul, whom the soul does not know, of whom the soul is the body, who rules the soul within, he is your soul, the inner controller, immortal' (Śat Br. 14.6.7, 30 ¹), 'Entered within, the ruler of men, the soul of all' (Tait. Ār. 3.11 2), by a term denoting the individual soul, the Supreme Soul is denoted,—so thinks the teacher Kāśakrtsna, a knower of the object controlled, as well as of the controller Thus, by means of the views of the three sages, the nature of difference and non-difference has been incidentally shown by his Holiness. And with a view to removing the contradiction among the scriptural texts by his own theory, he will clearly prove the natural relation of difference-non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman in the aphorisms 'A part, on account of the designation of variety' (Br Sū. 2.3.42) and so on. Here, the word 'soul' in the beginning refers to the Supreme Soul alone The worship of that very Supreme Soul is designated as a means to salvation in the passage " 'O, the soul, verily" ' (Brh. 2 4.5, 4 5 6) and so on. The text 'Having arisen from these beings, one vanishes into them alone' (Bṛh. 24 12, 4.5.13), indicates trans- migratory existence pertaining to one who is averse to the Supreme Soul, and the text: 'There is no consciousness after death' (Brh 2.4.12; 4.5.13) indicates salvation pertaining to His worshipper. Hence, it is established that the texts of the Maitreyī-brāhmaṇa all agree in referring to Brahman, different and non-different from the sentient and the non-sentient, the cause of all, to be approached by the freed and the controller of all Here ends the section entitled 'The connection of texts' (6) 1 P. 1074, line 18.

[sū. 1. 4. 23. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 257 COMPARISON Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha Here too, as before, the general import is the same, but while Nimbārka ¹ takes this adhikarana to be connected more directly with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrī- kaṇṭha do not. Further, Śaṁkara and Bhāskara interpret the word ‘avasthiteḥ’ differently. To them, it means ‘because of (Brah- man’s) abiding as the individual soul’ (vijñātmā-bhāvena) ². Adhikaraṇa 7. The section entitled ‘The material cause’. (Sūtras 23–27) SŪTRA 23 “(BRAHMAN IS) THE MATERIAL CAUSE, AND (THE EFFICIENT CAUSE), ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT WITH REGARD TO THE INITIAL PROPOSITION AND THE ILLUSTRATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “The material cause,” as well as the efficient cause,—indicated by the particle “and” (in the sūtra),—is none but the Supreme Soul, because then alone the initial proposition: ‘“Did you ask for that in- struction whereby the unheard becomes heard, the unthought becomes thought, the unknown becomes known ?”’ (Chānd. 6.1.3 ³), as well as the illustration: ‘“Just as, my dear, through a lump of clay, all objects made of clay may be known”’ (Chānd. 6.1.4 ⁴) are explicable. Vedānta-kaustubha Having thus refuted the atheistic school of the Sāṁkhyas, now the author, by refuting the theistic school of the Sāṁkhyas, is confirm- ing the view, mentioned above, that the Lord is the non-different material and efficient cause of the world. It may be objected that, properly, this section ought to have been inserted immediately after the aphorism: ‘From whom (arise)

¹ Vide V.K. 1.4.11, p. 137, Kāsī ed. ² Ś.B. 1 4 21, p. 426; Bh. B. 1.4.21, p 81. ³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ⁴ Op. cit. 17