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

[sū. 2. 3. 6. ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 393 The allegation stated under the aphorism 'Metaphorical, on account of impossibility and on account of scriptural text' (Br Sū. 2.3 3), viz that the origin of what is without parts being impossible, the scriptural text designating the origin of the ether is metaphorical,— is not tenable, since reasoning has no scope with regard to matters which are beyond the cognizance of the senses and are determined by Scripture. But how can then the text: 'The air and the atmosphere— this is immortal' (Brh. 2.3 3) be accountable? In this passage the permanency of the ether is established on the analogy of the statement 'The gods are immortal', and hence the immortality of the ether fits in. The allegation made under the aphorism: "And there may be (the use) of the same (term in two different senses), as in the case of the word 'Brahman'" (Br. Sū. 2.3.4), too, is not tenable, since the word 'Brahman' being mentioned twice, the example is not to the point.¹ COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha They break this sūtra into two parts—viz. "Pratijñāhānir . . .' and "Śabdebhyaḥ". The meaning of the last portion is different, viz (That the ether has an origin is known) from scriptural text (also).² CORRECT CONCLUSION (end) SŪTRA 6 "BUT AS FAR AS THERE IS EFFECT, THERE IS DIVISION, AS IN ORDINARY LIFE" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The author concludes: It being established by the texts 'All this has that for its soul' (Chānd 6.8.7, etc.³) and the rest that the ¹ In Tait. 2.1, the term 'originated' is mentioned only once, while in the analogical passage quoted, the term 'Brahman' is mentioned twice separately. Hence, while it may be said that of the two separately mentioned words 'Brahman', one is literal, the other figurative, it cannot be said that the word 'originated' which is mentioned only once, is simultaneously literal and figurative. ² Śrī. B. 125, Part 2; Śk B., pp 124-125, Parts 7 and 8. ³ R, Śk, B.

[SŪ. 2. 3. 6. 394 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] entire expanse of the universe, beginning with the ether, has Brahman for its soul, it is definitely ascertained that the ether is an effect. Likewise, it is known that "as far as there is effect" there is origin indeed.¹ The non-mention of the ether and the mention of light and the rest as objects to be created in the text: "He created that light" (Chānd. 6.2.3) fit in, "as in ordinary life". In ordinary life, when referring to the group of Devadatta's sons the origin of some of them is mentioned, thereby the origin of all the rest is mentioned. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. since in the Chāndogya there is no indication of the origin of the ether, the scriptural text designating origin is metaphorical,—(the author) replies: The term "but" is for disposing of the objection "As far as there is effect", i.e. the entire expanse of the universe, there is "division" indeed. The Chāndogya texts, viz. ' "The existent, alone, my dear, was this in the beginning"' (Chānd. 6.2.1), and ' "Whereby the unheard becomes heard, the unthought becomes thought, the unknown known"' (Chānd. 6 1.3) designate (respectively) that everything, beginning with the ether, and denoted by the term 'this' consisted of the cause in essence prior to creation, and is knowable through the knowledge of the cause. Hence, in the Chāndogya the "division", i.e. the origin, of the entire expanse of the universe, beginning with the ether, from the cause, is indeed stated. To the enquiry: Why then the origin of the light and the rest alone is mentioned, without any mention of the ether and the air?— we reply. "As in ordinary life". Just as in ordinary life, through the mention of the origin of some sons of a person, there may be the mention of the origin of all the rest, so through the statement of the origin of light and the rest, the origin of the ether and so on, too, is indeed mentioned. Hence, it is established that the ether has Brahman for its material cause. Here ends the section entitled "The ether" (1). ¹ I. e. whatever is an effect has an origin.

[sū. 2. 3. 7. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 395 COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 7 in their commentaries The interpretation of the word "vibhāga" is different. According to them it means 'division', and not "origin" as held by Nimbārka. Thus they argue:— Whatever is an effect is divided. The ether is divided (from the earth and so on). ∴ the ether is an effect ¹ But Nimbārka argues:— Whatever is an effect has an origin The ether is an effect. ∴ the ether has an origin. Thus, they establish what Nimbārka assumes (viz. that the ethor is an effect). The interpretation of the phrase "As in ordinary life" too is different, viz. they connect it with the preceding part of the sūtra, meaning—In ordinary life we observe that whatever is an effect is divided. ————— Adhikaraṇa 2 The section entitled "The Air". (Sūtra 7) SŪTRA 7 "HEREBY (THE ORIGIN OF) THE AIR (TOO) IS EXPLAINED." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha By this principle of the origin of the ether, the air, too, is explained. Vedānta-kaustubha Some may attribute eternity to the air on the ground of the texts: 'The air and the atmosphere—this is immortal' (Bṛh. 2.3.2), 'The divinity which does not set is the air' (Bṛh. 1.5 22) and so on. For disposing of this (view), the author says now: "Hereby", 1 e. by the establishment of the origin of the ether, the origin of the "air", too, should be known to be "explained", ———————————————————————————————————— ¹ Ś.B. 2.3.7, p. 586; Bh. B. 2.3.7, p. 131.

396 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 8. ADH. 3.] the refutation of the prima facie view being the same (in both cases). The denial of the dissolution (of the air) by the phrase 'does not set' is (only) relative. Hence, it is established that the air has an origin. Here ends the section entitled "The Air" (2). Adhikaraṇa 3. The section entitled "Non- origination". (Sūtra 8) SŪTRA 8 "BUT THERE IS NON-ORIGINATION OF THE EXISTENT BEING, ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOSSIBILITY." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is indeed "non-origination", i.e. non-production, "of the existent being", i.e of Brahman, because the origin of the cause of the world is impossible. Vedānta-kaustubha Now the author is removing the suspicion, viz. If even the ether and the air, designated by Scripture as immortal, be originated, then there may be the origin of Brahman too There is indeed "non-origin", i.e. no birth, of Brahman, the Highest Person. Why? "On account of impossibility," i.e. because the origin of the cause of all is impossible,—otherwise, there must be a cause of that too, a cause of that too and so on, and there must be an infinite regress;—because (He) is declared to be the cause of all by the text: 'He is the cause, the cause of the lord of causes' ¹ (Śvet. 6 9); and because any other cause is excluded by the passage: 'Of him there is no producer and lord' (Śvet. 6 9). For this very reason, it is established that there is no origin of the Supreme Person, who is ever-present and unborn indeed, though declared by Scripture to be ¹ Correct quotation: "Karṇādhipādhipa", meaning 'The Lord of the lord of sense-organs, (viz. the individual soul)'. Vide Śvet. 6.9, p. 70.

[SŪ. 2. 3. 9. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 397 manifold for the sake of producing effects, thus: ‘Being unborn, he appears manifold’ (Vj. S 31.19b ¹; Tait. Ār. 3.13.1b ²). Here ends the section entitled “Non-origination” (3). COMPARISON Bhāskara This is sūtra 9 in his commentary. Interpretation absolutely different, viz. ‘But (if it be objected that qualities like touch, sound, etc., as well as space, time, number, size, etc., are not declared by Scripture to have an origin, and hence they must all be eternal,— then we reply. The eternity of what is existent (viz. qualities, etc.) is impossible, because of the non-fitting in (i.e. non-utility) (of the scriptural texts to declare their origin). That is, it is not at all necessary for Scripture to designate separately the origin of these qualities, etc. since it is quite sufficient to designate the origin of the objects alone, that implying the origin of the qualities simultaneously. Similarly, time is nothing but the motion of the sun and hence its origin, though not mentioned separately, is implied by the mention of the origin of the sun. Likewise the other things are to be explained. In conclusion Bhāskara criticizes Śaṃkara's interpretation of the sūtra,—which is identical with Nimbārka's.³ Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled “The light”. (Sūtras 9–13) PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtras 9–12) SŪTRA 9 “HENCE THE LIGHT (ORIGINATES FROM THE AIR), FOR THUS (SCRIPTURE) DECLARES.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “The light” originates from the air, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘Fire from the air’ (Tait. 2.1 ⁴). ¹ P. 857, line 17. Reading “vijāyate”. ² P. 201. Reading op. cit. ³ Bh. B. 2.2.9, pp. 131-32. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

398 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 10. ADH 4.] Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out above that everything except Brahman has origin, and that Brahman is untouched by the faults of producible- ness and the rest. Now, the problem is being considered, viz. whether each preceding object, or Brahman, its inner soul, is the cause of each succeeding object, to be produced successively On the doubt, viz whether the light originates from the air or from Brahman, its (viz. the air's) inner soul,—the prima facie view is as follows The light is an effect. Hence, it originates from the immediate cause air. The prima facie objector points out the authority for this thus. The Taittirīya text 'From the air fire' (Tait 2.1) "declares that" alone. COMPARISON Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva This is sūtra 10 in the commentaries of the first two. They do not take this sūtra as laying down a prima facie view, but as the correct conclusion. It means, therefore: "The light (does not arise directly from the Lord, but from the air), for thus (Scripture) declares".¹ PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued) SŪTRA 10 "WATER (ORIGINATES FROM THE LIGHT)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "Water" originates from light, in accordance with the scriptural text: 'Water from fire' (Tait. 2.1 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha The phrase: 'Hence, for thus' is to be supplied here. Hence, i.e. on account of the very proximity, water originates from light. The scriptural text: 'Water from fire' (Tait. 2.1 ³) declares that very thing. ¹ Ś.B. 2.3.10, p. 594; Bh. B 2.3.10, p. 132; G.B. 2.3.9. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ³ Op. cit.

[sū. 2. 3. 11-12. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 399 COMPARISON Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva This is sūtra 11 in the commentaries of the first two. As before they do not take this as a prima facie sūtra, but as a siddhānta one, meaning: “Water (originates from light)”.¹ PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued) SŪTRA 11 “THE EARTH (ORIGINATES FROM WATER).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The earth originates from water, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘They (viz waters) created food’ (Chānd 6.2 4²). Vedānta-kaustubha The earth originates from water. The scriptural text: ‘Those waters thought: “May we procreate”. They created food’ (Chānd. 6 2 4) declares this. Similarly, it should be known that everywhere the origin of the effect takes place from the immediately preceding cause. COMPARISON Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva This sūtra is not found in their commentaries. PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded) SŪTRA 12 “(THE WORD ‘FOOD’ DENOTES) THE EARTH, ON ACCOUNT OF SUBJECT-MATTER, COLOUR AND ANOTHER SCRIPTURAL TEXT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha By the term ‘food’ “the earth” is denoted, because the subject- matter is the (creation of the) great elements; because its colour is ¹ Ś B. 2.3.11, p. 596; Bh. B. 2.3 11, p. 132, G.B. 2.3.10. ² R, Śk

[sū. 2. 3. 13. 400 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.] declared by the scriptural text: 'What is black is of the food' (Chānd. 6.4.1 ¹); and, finally, because of another scriptural text: 'The earth from water' (Tait. 2.1 ²) Vedānta-kaustubha Incidentally, the meaning of the word 'food', mentioned in the scriptural text. 'They created the food' (Chānd. 6.2.4), is being indicated through the prima facie objector himself. In accordance with the complementary text, viz 'Wherever it rains, then there is plenty of food' (Chānd. 6.2.4), rice, barley, and the like are not meant by the word 'food', but the earth alone is the object denoted by the word 'food'. Why? 'On account of subject-matter, colour, and another scriptural text,' that is, because in accordance with the text: 'He created that light, He created that water' (Chānd. 6.2 3), the subject-matter here is the origin of the great element; because in the complementary passage: 'That which is the red colour of fire is the colour of the light; that which is white is of water, that which is black is of the food' (Chānd. 6.4.1) the colour (of the earth is men- tioned); and because there are other scriptural texts occurring in connection with the same topic, viz. 'Water from fire, the earth from water' (Tait. 2.1), 'What was the froth of the earth became solidified. That became the earth' (Bṛh. 1 2.2). COMPARISON Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva This is sūtra 12 in the commentaries of the first two, and sūtra 11 in the commentary of the last Interpretation same, though not a prima facie view. CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 13) SŪTRA 13 "BUT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DESIRE, ON ACCOUNT OF HIS MARK, HE (IS THE CREATOR) " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The author states the correct conclusion. "On account of His desire," viz. '"May I be many"' (Chānd. 6.2.3), as well as on account ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ² R, Bh, Śk, B.

[sū. 2. 3. 13. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 401 of the scriptural text teaching Him,—the Supreme Person, their inner soul, is the creator of their effects. Vedānta-kaustubha The author states the correct conclusion. The prima facie view is rejected by the term "but". "He" alone, i.e. Lord Vāsudeva, the supreme cause and the Lord of all and the inner soul of the air and the rest, is the creator of the effects like light and the rest. Why ? "On account of His desire," i.e. on account of the desire, or resolve, of Him, or of the Highest Person, viz.: ‘"May I be many" ’ (Chānd. 6.2.3); (and) "On account of His mark", i.e. on account of the group of texts teaching Him, viz. 'Abiding within the earth' (Bṛh. 3.7.3), 'He who abiding within water' (Bṛh. 3 7 4), 'He who abiding within the light' (Bṛh. 3.7 14), 'He who abiding within the air' (Bṛh. 3.7.7) 'He who abiding within the ether' (Bṛh. 3.7.12), 'That itself created itself' (Tait 2.7) and so on. Hereby it should be known that in the passages 'That light thought' (Chānd. 6.2.3), 'Those waters perceived' (Chānd. 6.2.4) and so on too, the thinking of the Supreme Being alone (is mentioned). Hence, it is established that no independent creatorship belongs to anything else,—it is the Supreme Soul alone who is the primary creator everywhere. Here ends the section entitled "The light" (4). COMPARISON All others read "Tad-abhidhyānād eva tu", adding an "eva". Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation same, though they do not take this sūtra as answering to a prima facie view. This sūtra, according to them, removes the suspicion, that might have arisen from the above designa- tion of the successive production of elements, viz. that the elements give rise to other elements by themselves. The fact is that it is the Lord himself abiding within those elements that gives rise to the next effect.¹ ¹ Ś.B. 2.3.13, pp. 598 ff.; Bh. B. 2.3.13, p. 133 ; G.B. 2.3.12. 26

[SŪ. 2. 3. 14. 402 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.] Adhikarana 5: The section entitled “The reverse”. (Sūtra 14) SŪTRA 14 “BUT THE ORDER (OF DISSOLUTION) (IS) REVERSE TO THAT, AND (THIS) FITS IN.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The order of dissolution is reverse “to that”, i e. to the order of creation”, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘The earth merged in water’ (Subāla 2.4¹). “And” this “fits in” on the principle of salt and water. Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, the order of the origin of elements has been determined in brief. Now, incidentally, their order of dissolution is being determined. On the doubt as to whether the order of dissolution is the same as the order of creation, or reverse, the suggestion being: Since even when the prior created object is destroyed, the posterior one is possible, (dissolution takes place) through the same order as that of origination alone.— (The author) states the correct conclusion: “But the order is reverse to that”. The order of dissolution must be understood to be the “reverse” “to that”, i.e. to the order of the origination of objects, which is mentioned in Scripture in the text: ‘From this soul, verily, the ether originated, from the ether the air, from the air the fire, from the fire water, from water the earth’ (Tait. 2.1), ‘“What was, then, existent?” He said, to them: “Neither being, nor non-being, nor being and non-being. From him darkness arises, from darkness bhūtādi,² from bhūtādi the ether, from the ether the air, from the air the fire, from the fire water, from water the earth. That egg arose”’ (Subāla 1.1–3); and which is established by a thousand Smṛti passages, viz. ‘The divinity is without beginning and without end, likewise, indivisible, ageless, immortal; celebrated to be unmanifest, constant, likewise undecaying, and immortal; sprung up from whom beings are born and die. That divinity first created what is called mahat from name, the great ahaṁkāra as well. Mahat

¹ P. 465. ² Or the tāmasa ahaṁkāra. Vide V.R.M., p 25.

[SŪ. 2. 3. 14. ADH. 5 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 403 created ahaṃkāra. Then the Lord, the Master, who is the support of all elements, (created) what is celebrated to be the ether From the ether originated water, from water fire and air, then from the conjunc- tion of fire and air the earth originated’, and so on. And this "fits in" on the ground of the scriptural text: ‘The earth merges in water, water merges in the fire, the fire merges in the air, the air merges in the ether, the ether into the sense-organs, the sense-organs in the subtle essences, the subtle essences in bhūtādi, bhūtādi in mahat, mahat in the unmanifest’ (Subāla 2.4), on the ground of the following Smṛti passage, viz. ‘The earth, the support of the world, merges, divine sage, in water, water merges in the fire, the fire merges in the air’; and on the ground of observing salt, ice and the like to be dissolved into water. What is not mentioned, by the text about creation, in the order of the origination of prakṛti, mahat, ahaṃkāra, the ether and so on, is to be supplied from the text about dissolution; i e. the construction is: ‘The ether (merges in) the sense-organs, the sense-organs in the subtle essences, the subtle essences in bhūtādi’. The ether merges in the subtle essences, the subtle essences merge in bhūtādi, i.e. in tāmasa ahaṃkāra, the sense-organs in sense-organs, i e in the rājasa ahaṃkāra,—since here by the word ‘sense-organ’ ahaṃkāra is understood there being non-difference between cause and effect. The plural number, viz. ‘subtle essences’ is meant for showing that the dissolution of the earth and the rest takes place through the subtle essences of smell and the rest. On account of the three-foldness of ahaṃkāra, the plural number, viz. ‘In the sense-organs’, has been used. Thus, it is established that dissolution, taking place in the above inverted order, is not contradicted by anything whatsoever. Here ends the section entitled “The reverse” (5). COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Baladeva This is sūtra 15 in Rāmānuja’s commentary. He does not begin a new adhikaraṇa here, concerned with the order of dissolution, but continues the topic of the order of evolution. Thus the sūtra means according to him: And the order (of the origination of the vital- breath and the rest), on the contrary, (stated) in a reverse order (to

404 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [Sū. 2 3. 15. ADH. 6.] the real order of succession) fits in (only if there be the origination of all effects directly) from thence (i e. Brahman) That is, in Scripture we have many passages which designate the vital-breath and the rest as rising directly from Brahman, in opposition to the real order of evolution, viz. prakṛti, mahat, and so on; and these texts are explicable only on the supposition that everything really arises from Brahman directly.¹ This is sūtra 13 in Baladeva's commentary, who follows Rāmānuja exactly with the difference that he takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself.² Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 15 in his commentary, reading different, viz. substitutes "pāramparyeṇa", in place of "viparyyayeṇa". Interpre- tation too different, viz. he begins a new adhikaraṇa here, ending with the next sūtra, and concerned with the question of the origin of sense- organs, mind and the like,—which according to Nimbārka begins with the next sūtra.³ Adhikaraṇa 6: The section entitled "Knowledge which intervenes" (Sūtra 15) SŪTRA 15 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT KNOWLEDGE AND MIND (MUST BE PLACED) BETWEEN (BRAHMAN AND THE ELEMENTS) ON ACCOUNT OF ITS INDICATION (IN SCRIPTURAL TEXT), (AND THAT THE ABOVE ORDER OF CREATION IS SET ASIDE) BY (THIS) ORDER, (WE REPLY;) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DIFFERENCE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected: "On account of the indication", viz. 'From him arise the vital-breath, the mind, and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ. 2 1.3⁴), "knowledge and mind" must be between Brahman and the elements; and "by the order" obtained in this way the above- mentioned order is contradicted,— ¹ Śrī. B. 2.3.15, p. 131, Part 2. ² G.B. 2.3.13, p. 177, Chap. 2. ³ Śk. B. 2.3.15, pp. 135-36, Parts 7 and 8. ⁴ Ś, R, B, Śk, B.

[sū. 2. 3. 15. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 405 (We reply ) “no”, because the above text is not concerned with a specific order, and because the text: ‘From him arise the vital- breath, the mind and all sense-organs’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3) (is concerned with laying down only) “the non-difference” of the origin of knowledge and mind as well as of the ether and the rest from Brahman alone.¹ In the text under discussion, viz.: ‘From this soul, verily, the ether originated’ (Tait 2.1²), establishing the order of the creation of ele- ments,—in between the soul and the ether, the categories of the unmani- fest, mahat and ahaṁkāra, well-known from texts concerned with the orders of creation and dissolution and figuratively implied by the phrase “knowledge and mind” (in the sūtra), are to be known,—so much in brief. Vedānta-kaustubha With a view to encouraging meditation, and generating reverence for Brahman, Lord Vāsudeva, the place from which the world emanates and into which it enters; as well as for generating an aversion to the world, the orders of creation and dissolution have been determined Now, the order of the origin of knowledge and mind, which promote meditation, is being established in harmony with the order of the origin of elements. If it be objected: The above-mentioned order of the origin of elements is set aside by the order of the origin of knowledge and mind. Thus, knowledge is that through which a thing is known, i.e. sense- organ. The sense-organs and the mind must be in between Brahman and the elements. Why? “On account of its indication.” An indication (liṅga) or a mark is that through which something is painted,³ i.e. known, an indication of that, i.e. of creation, on account of that; ⁴ that is, on account of the scriptural text indicating their creation, viz. ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the mind, and all sense- organs, the ether, the air, the fire, water and the earth, the support of all’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3). Hence the above-mentioned order is set aside by it —

¹ I.e. the above Mund text simply shows that just as the ether, etc. rise from Brahman, so exactly do the sense-organs, the mind, etc. too,—but does not lay down a definite order of creation. See V.K. below. ² Not quoted by others in this connection. ³ Root √ling = to paint. ⁴ This explains the compound “tal-liṅgāt”.

[sū. 2. 3. 15 406 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.] (We reply.) “No”. Why ? “On account of non-difference,” i.e. because of the non-difference of the origin of knowledge and mind, as well as of the ether and the rest, from Brahman alone. The text: ‘From him arise the vital-breath’ (Muṇḍ. 2 1 3) and so on simply points out that there is the origin of all from Brahman, and is not set aside by the above-mentioned order. In the very same manner, scriptural texts like: ‘He created the vital-breath, from the vital- breath reverence, the ether, the air, the fire, water, the earth, the sense- organs, the mind, food’ (Praśna 6.4) and so on, designate that every- thing arises from Brahman, and do not set forth a particular order. The meaning of the word ‘vital-breath’ in the passage. ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all sense-organs’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3) will become clear later on.¹ And, thus it is established that in the aphorism. “But there is” (Br. Sū. 2 3 2), only a portion (of the real order of creation) has been mentioned by the author of the aphorisms. So, in the abridged texts designating the order of the origination of elements, such as: ‘From the soul the ether originated’ (Tait. 2.1) and so on, the portions not mentioned, viz. prakṛti, mahat and the rest, established by other texts concerned about creation and dissolu- tion, and figuratively implied by the phrase “knowledge and mind” (in the sūtra), are necessarily understood; but there is no contradiction whatsoever of the texts designating the order of the origination of elements by other texts. Here ends the section entitled “Knowledge which intervenes” (6). COMPARISON Śaṃkara The interpretation of the word “aviśeṣāt” different, viz. “On account of the non-difference (of the organs from the elements)”. That is, the organs being of the same nature as the elements, the origination of the former is the same as that of the latter, and not different.² ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 2.4.9. ² Ś.B. 2.3.15, p. 602.

[sū. 2. 3. 16. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 407 Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled “The soul”. (Sūtras 16-17) SŪTRA 16 “BUT THAT DESIGNATION (OF THE SOUL AS BEING BORN OR DYING) MUST DEPEND ON (I.E. REFER TO) THE MOBILE AND IMMOBILE (BODIES), (IT IS) METAPHORICAL (IN REFERENCE TO THE SOUL), BECAUSE (THERE IS) THE EXISTENCE (OF BIRTH AND DEATH) IF THERE BE THE EXISTENCE OF THAT (I E. THE BODY).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The nature of the individual soul is being determined now. “The designation” like: ‘Devadatta is born and dead’ is metaphorical, and as such “depends on the mobile and the immobile”,—there being the “existence” of birth and death when there is the “existence” of the body. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out above that the ether and the rest originate from Brahman, the unborn, the highest. Now the problem is being considered, viz. whether like them the individual soul, too, is some- thing to be produced or not. The word ‘soul’ is to be supplied from the immediately following aphorism. On the doubt, viz. whether the ‘soul’, i e. the individual soul, originates or not, the prima facie view, viz. In conformity with the designation, viz. ‘Devadatta is born and dead’, the soul is born and dies,—is disposed of by the term “but”. This conventional designation of the origination and dissolution of the soul “must be metaphorical”, i.e. is figurative in reference to the individual soul. To the enquiry: In reference to what then is it literal?—(the author) replies· “Dependent on the mobile and the immobile”, i.e. it refers to the bodies of the movable and the immovable. Why? “Because (there is) existence, if there be the existence of that,” i.e. because there can be origination and dissolution only if there be the existence of that, i e. the body, in accordance with the scriptural text· ‘This person being born and obtaining a body . . . He departing and dying’ (Bṛh. 4.3.8) COMPARISON Rāmānuja This is sūtra 17 in his commentary. He does not begin a new adhikaraṇa here, but concludes the topic of the order of evolution.

[sū. 2. 3. 17. 408 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.] He reads both "bhākta" and "abhākta" and gives two explanations accordingly. Thus (1) But the designation which depends on (i.e. refers to) the movable and the immovable must be secondary, because of being permeated by the being of that (viz. Brahman). (Here he reads "bhākta".) That is, all the words denoting movable and immovable objects are only secondary with regard to those objects, but really denote Brahman, since all objects are modes of Brahman, (2) or, all the terms denoting movable and immovable objects are primary with regard to Brahman, because the denotative power of all terms depends on the being of Brahman. (Here he reads "abhākta".) ¹ Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 17 in his commentary as well. He reads "abhākta", takes this sūtra as an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets it exactly like Rāmānuja.² Baladeva This is sūtra 15 in his commentary. He also reads "abhākta", takes it as an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets on the whole like Rāmānuja. Only the interpretation of the word "tad-bhāva- bhāvitvāt" is different; viz. "But the designation dependent on (i.e. referring to) the movable and the immovable must be primary (with regard to the Lord), because that fact (tad-bhāva) (viz. the fact that all words really denote the Lord) is something that follows in future (i.e. is not directly known at once, but is a matter which one comes to know after studying Scripture)".³ SŪTRA 17 "THE SOUL (DOES) NOT (ORIGINATE), ON ACCOUNT OF NON- MENTION IN SCRIPTURE, AND ON ACCOUNT OF ETERNITY (KNOWN) THEREFROM (I.E. FROM SCRIPTURAL TEXTS)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The individual "soul" does not originate. Why? Because there is no text about its having origin by nature; and because from 1 Śrī. B. 2.3.17, pp. 132-33, Part 2. 2 Śk. B. 2.3.17, pp. 138-39, Parts 7 and 8. 3 G.B. 2.3.15, pp. 181-82, Chap. 2.

[SŪ. 2. 3. 17. ADH 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 409 the scriptural texts: ‘A wise man is neither born nor dies’ (Kaṭha 2.18 ¹), ‘Eternal among the eternal’ (Kaṭha. 5 13 ²), ‘An unborn one, verily, lies by, enjoying’ (Śvet. 4 5 ³) and so on, the eternity of the individual soul is known. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be argued In conformity with the texts: ‘One desirous of heaven should perform sacrifices’ (Tait Saṁ. 2 5 5 ⁴), etc , which lay down the means to attaining lordship in the next world, let the designa- tion: ‘Devadatta is born and dead’ refer to the birth and death of the body. But like the ether and the rest, birth and death must pertain to the individual soul as well at the time of creation and dissolution (respectively). Thus there is no conflict whatsoever with any text.— We reply: “Not, the soul, on account of non-mention in Scripture”. The singular number ‘soul’ implies the class,⁵ in accordance with the scriptural text teaching the plurality of souls, viz. ‘Eternal among the eternal, conscious among the conscious’ (Kaṭha. 5.13, Śvet. 6.13), and in accordance with the aphorism, to be mentioned hereafter, viz. “And on account of non-continuity, there is no confusion” (Br. Sū. 2 3 48). The soul is not born, nor dies. Why? ‘On account of non-mention in Scripture’, i.e. because there are no scriptural texts designating the birth and death (of the soul) at the time of creation and dissolution; and, because on the contrary, “the eternity” of the soul is known “therefrom”, i e. from the scriptural texts like: ‘“Imperishable, verily, O ! is this soul, possessing the virtue of being indestructible”’ (Bṛh. 4.5.14), ‘A wise man is neither born, nor dies’ (Kaṭha. 2.8), ‘Eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious, the one among the many, who bestows objects of desires’ (Kaṭha. 5.13; Śvet. 6.13), ‘The two unborn ones, the knower and the non-knower, the lord and the non-lord’ (Śvet 1.9), ‘One unborn one, verily, lies by, enjoying Another unborn one leaves her who has been enjoyed’ (Śvet. 4.5) and so on; as well as from the following Smṛti passages, viz. ‘“Nor at any time, verily, was

¹ Ś, R, Śk, B. ² R, Śk, B. ³ Not quoted by others. ⁴ P. 208, line 27, vol. 2. ⁵ And not that there is only one soul.

410 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 17. ADH. 7.] I not, nor you, nor these lords of men; nor, verily, shall we ever not be hereafter' " (Gītā 2.12), ' "Unborn, eternal, constant and ancient, he is not killed when the body is killed' " (Gītā 2 20), ' "Who knows him to be imperishable, eternal, unborn and immutable, how can that man kill one, O Pārtha, or cause one to be killed?"' (Gītā 2.21) and so on. If it be objected: There are scriptural texts designating the origin of the world together with the sentient, such as, 'All come forth from this soul', 'Born of whom, the progenitress of the universe let loose the souls with water on the earth' (Mahānār. 1.4), 'The lord of beings created beings' (Tait Br. 1.1.10, 1 ¹) ' "All these beings, my dear, have Being as their root, Being as their abode, Boing as their support"' (Chānd. 6.8.4), '"From whom, verily, these beings arise, through whom they live when born, to whom they go and enter"' (Tait. 3.1) and so on. Hence, the denial of birth and death of the individual soul is not reasonable. For this very reason, the initial proposition that through the knowledge of one there is the knowledge of all, is established,— (We reply:) "No", because the quoted texts teach that individual soul has an origin, which (is not actual origin, but simply) consists in the expansion of its knowledge, caused by its connection with the body, subsequent to its giving up its real nature at the time of dissolution. If this be so, then the individual soul too being an effect of Brahman, the above initial proposition is established. And hence, it is established that Brahman, who in His causal state possesses the non-divided names and forms as His powers and is without an equal or a superior,—in accordance with the text: '"The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second"' (Chānd. 6.2.1),—comes Himself, as possessed of the manifest names and forms as His powers at the time of the production of effects, to abide as three- fold, viz. in the forms of the enjoyer (i.e. the cit), the object enjoyed (i.e. the acit) and the controller (i e. Brahman). There is no con- tradiction here by any text whatever. Here ends the section entitled "The soul" (7). 1 P. 23, line 16, vol. 1.

[sū. 2. 3. 18. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 411 COMPARISON Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva They read "śruteḥ" instead of "aśruteh"¹. Interpretation same. Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "The knower". (Sūtra 18) SŪTRA 18 "(THE SOUL IS) A KNOWER, FOR THAT VERY REASON." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The soul, which is an ego, is a knower. Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, it has been pointed out that the soul does not originate like the ether and the rest, since it is eternal, as established by Scripture. Now, incidentally, its nature, etc. are being determined. The word 'soul' is to be supplied from the preceding aphorism. By the phrase "for this reason", the reason mentioned by the term 'therefrom' (in the preceding sūtra) is referred to. On the doubt, viz. whether the soul is non-sentient by nature, but possessed of the attribute of knowledge or mere consciousness, or knowledge by nature yet possessed of (the attribute of) being a knower,—the Vaiśeṣikas ² and the like hold that it is non-sentient, yet possessed of the attribute of knowledge; while the Sāṁkhyas and the rest hold that the soul is mere consciousness. With regard to it we reply: "A knower", i.e. the individual soul is nothing but a knower, i.e. nothing but knowledge by nature, yet possessed of (the attribute of) being a knower. Why? On the ground of the following scriptural texts, viz. 'Here this person becomes self-illuminating' (Bṛh. 4.3.9, 14), 'The person who is made of knowledge among the vital-breaths, who is the light in the heart' (Bṛh. 4.3.7), 'There is no annihilation of the knowledge of ¹ Śrī. B. 2.3.18, p. 136, Part 2; Śk. B. 2.3.18, p. 140, Parts 7 and 8; G.B. 2.3.16. ² Vide V. Sū. 3.1.18, and Śaṁkara Miśra's commentary, p. 161.

412 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 2. 3. 18. ADH. 8.] the knower, because of his imperishability' (Bṛh. 4.3.30), ' “ Whereby should one know, O ! the knower ? ' ” ' (Bṛh. 2.4.14; 4.5 15), 'This person simply knows', 'For he is the one who sees, .1 hears, smells, .2 thinks, conceives, does, the intelligent self ' (Praśna 4 9) and so on. The doctrine of the non-sentient soul, on the other hand, is to be rejected,—because then the attribute of knowledge by itself, being the effector of all practical transactions, will come to attain primacy, and hence the non-sentient substratum of the attribute (viz. the soul), being non-liable to salvation or bondage, virtue or vice, will come to be non-primary or useless like the nipple on the neck of a goat; 3 and finally, because of its opposition to Scripture. The doctrine of mere consciousness, too, is to be rejected, because if consciousness be all-pervading, then there will be no perception of the pleasure and the like pertaining to the entire body; but if it be atomic in size, then there will be no experience of the pleasure and the like pertaining to hands, feet and so on. Hence it is established that this soul, known through self- consciousness, is knowledge by nature and a knower. Here ends the section entitled “The knower” (8). COMPARISON Śaṁkara Interpretation different—viz. he interprets the word “jña” as eternal consciousness and not as a knower.4 1 Touches. 2 Tastes. 3 An emblem of any useless or worthless object or person. 4 Ś.B. 2 2.18, p. 609.