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

[SŪ. 2. 3. 49 444 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 12.] all-pervasive by reason of their (all-pervasive) attribute (of knowledge),¹ the individual souls, being atomic by nature, are not all-pervasive; and as such there is no confusion among karmas Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. On your view, too, on account of being parts of the all-pervasive Being, as well as on account of possessing an all-pervasive attribute, all the souls come to experience the pleasures and the like in all the bodies; and as such a confusion among karmas, as well as a confusion among the enjoyments of their fruits will result. Hence, as the view that the soul is a part of the all- pervading Brahman, is atomic by itself and is all-pervasive by reason of its attribute, involves unnecessary complications, so Kapila's doctrine of the soul, viz. that the soul is all-pervasive by itself, is more acceptable,—the author replies here. "On account of the non-extension," i.e non-all-pervasiveness of the souls,—mutually distinct by reason of being atomic, and distinct also from the Whole (i.e. the Lord) by being predicated as parts,— "there is no confusion". The term "and" indicates the contraction of the soul's knowledge during its state of bondage. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 47 in his commentary. The same topic continued: "And on account of the non-extension (i.e. incompleteness of the individual soul, there is) no (possibility of) a confusion (between it and an incarnation)". That is, the soul is atomic and not full and perfect like an incarnation, hence different from him ² SŪTRA 49 "AND (THE DOCTRINES OF THE ALL-PERVASIVENESS OF THE SOUL) ARE FALLACIES MERELY." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And the doctrines of an all-pervasive soul and the rest of the opponents like Kapila and others are "fallacious merely", since, 1 Vide V.P.S. 2.3.28 2 G.B. 2.3 47, p. 227, Chap. 2.

[sū. 2. 3. 49. ADH 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 445 on those views, there results a confusion (among karmas and so on of the souls). Vedānta-kaustubha But the doctrines of an all-pervasive soul and the rest of Kapila, Kaṇāda and so on are "fallacious merely", as they have no (scriptural) basis, and as, on these views, there a confusion among all practical transactions will result. By the term "and" it is indicated that such teachers simply delude people. COMPARISON Śaṃkara This is sūtra 50 in his commentary. He reads "ābhāsaḥ" in place of "ābhāsāḥ". Interpretation absolutely different, viz. "(The indivi- dual soul is) only a reflection (of Brahman)". Thus, here he develops his doctrine of Pratibimba.¹ Rāmānuja He reads "ābhāsaḥ", and interprets the sūtra thus: "(The view that Brahman is obscured by limiting adjunct or nescience) is simply a fallacy". He accepts the alternative reading "ābhāsāḥ" too and points out that in that case the sūtra will mean: "(The various reasons advanced by the supporters of the above doctrine) are simply fallacies".² Bhāskara This is sūtra 50 in his commentary He substitutes "vā" in place of "ca". He, also, like Rāmānuja, directs this sūtra against the Śaṃkarite view, thus: "(Nesciences are) simply fallacies".³ Śrīkaṇṭha He too directs this sūtra against the Śaṃkarite view, interpreting it like Rāmānuja's second interpretation.⁴ Baladeva This is sūtra 48 in his commentary He reads "ābhāsaḥ". The same topic continued, viz. "(The reason adduced by the prima facie ¹ Ś.B. 2.3.50, pp. 642. ² Śrī. B. 2.3.49, p. 163, Part 2. ³ Bh. B. 2.3.50, p. 142. ⁴ Śk. B. 2.3.49, p. 101, Parts 7 and 8.

[SŪ. 2. 3. 50. 446 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 12 ] objector to prove the similarity of the soul with the incarnation) is a mere fallacy". That is, the argument: The soul is a part of the Lord. The incarnation is a part of the Lord ∴ the soul is equal to the incarnation, evidently involves the logical fallacy of undistributed middle.¹ SŪTRA 50 "BECAUSE OF THE NON-RESTRICTION WITH REGARD TO THE UNSEEN PRINCIPLE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On the doctrine of an all-pervasive soul, confusion is unavoidable even if recourse be taken to the unseen principle, "because of the non-restriction with regard to the unseen principle". Vedānta-kaustubha To the argument, viz. there is no confusion among all practical transactions on our view too, since the unseen principle is the regulator, —the author replies: Confusion results indeed on the view of the opponents, "because of the non-restriction with regard to the unseen principle", viz. to whom may the unforeseen principle, generated in the vicinity of all the all-pervasive souls, belong and to whom not. COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation same, only they direct this and the remaining sūtras to the refutation of the Śaṁkarite view, and not to the view of Kapila and others. Baladeva This is sūtra 50 in his commentary He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (three sūtras), concerned with proving the mutual difference among the individual souls. Thus, this sūtra means, according to ¹ G.B. 2.3.48, p. 228, Chap. 2.

[sū. 2. 3 51. ADH 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 447 him "(The individual souls, though similar in their essential nature, are yet different from one another) on account of the non-determinate- ness (i e. non-similarity) of (their) destinies".¹ SŪTRA 51 “AND IT IS SO EVEN WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION AND THE LIKE ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is no restriction "even with regard to determinations and the like", such as: 'I shall do this and not that'. Vedānta-kaustubha To the argument, viz. A restriction is possible, viz. the unseen principle belongs to one who has the determination: 'I shall do this and not that',—the author replies here: “Determination” means resolution. By the phrase “and the like” reverence and so on are understood. There is, indeed, no restriction with regard to the unseen principle even in the case of resolution, reverence and the rest COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 51 in his commentary. He continues the same theme, viz. “And thus (the individual souls are different) with regard to (their) desire and the rest also”. That is, adṛṣṭa or the unseen principle is the ultimate cause which determines the difference between the souls, and not their desires, inclinations and the like, which are only the secondary causes.² 1 G.B. 2.3.49, p. 229, Chap. 2. 2 G.B. 2.3.50, p. 230, Chap. 2.

448 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 52. ADH. 12.] SŪTRA 52 "IF IT BE OBJECTED: ON ACCOUNT OF PLACE, (WE REPLY:) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF INCLUSION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be argued that "on account of the place" of the self, situated within its own body, everything is consistent,—(we reply:) "no". "On account of the inclusion" therein of the places of all the souls. Here ends the third quarter in the second chapter of the Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā texts, and composed by the reverend Nimbārka. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected: A definite restriction is possible with regard to determinations and the rest, "on account of place", i.e. it is in the region of the soul, situated within its own body alone, that the conjunction of the mind (with the soul) takes place,—on account of such a place of the soul,—(we reply:) "no", "on account of the inclusion" therein of the places of other souls too. The sense is this: Since all the souls are connected with one and the same mind, the determinations and the rest, due to the conjunction of the mind (with the soul), must be common to all; and hence the unseen principle, due to them, must indeed be common to all. This being so, the confusion among all practical transactions remains as before. Hence, it is established that the individual soul is a part of Brahman, Lord Vāsudeva, is atomic in size, knowledge by nature, possessed of the attributes of 'being an agent', 'being a knower' and so on and different in every body. Here ends the section entitled "A part" (12). Here ends the third quarter of the second chapter in the holy Vedānta-kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā and composed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus- feet of the holy Nimbārka.

[sū. 2. 3 52. ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 449 COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 51 in his commentary. The same topic continued : "If it be objected (that the difference among the individual souls is) due to the difference of (their) environments, (we reply :) no, because (the difference of environments, such as heaven, hell, and different lots in the world) are included under (i.e. due to) adṛṣṭa". That is, finally, adṛṣṭa or the unseen principle is the cause of the difference among the souls.¹ Résumé The third quarter of the second chapter contains—

1. 52 sūtras and 12 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka ;
2. 53 sūtras and 17 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṃkara ;
3. 52 sūtras and 7 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja ;
4. 53 sūtras and 17 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara ;
5. 52 sūtras and 12 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha,
6. 51 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva. Śaṃkara and Bhāskara break each of the sūtras 3 and 26 in Nimbārka's commentary into two different ones, and omit sūtra 11. Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha break sūtra 5 in Nimbārka's com- mentary into two different sūtras, and take sūtras 33 and 34 in it as one sūtra, reversing the order. Baladeva omits sūtra 11 in Nimbārka's commentary.

¹ G.B. 2.3.51, p. 230, Chap. 2. 29

SECOND CHAPTER (Adhyāya) FOURTH QUARTER (Pāda) Adhikarana 1: The section entitled “The origin of the sense-organs”. (Sūtras 1–4) SŪTRA 1 “LIKEWISE THE SENSE-ORGANS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The origin of the organs is being considered. The sense-organs originate like the ether and the rest. Vedānta-kaustubha In the preceding quarter, the absence of any contradiction among the scriptural texts regarding the ether and the rest has been shown. Now, the author is showing the non-contradictory nature of the scriptural texts regarding the organs of the individual soul. On the doubt, viz. whether the sense-organs originate or not, the prima facie view is as follows: In the discussions about origin, e.g. in the scriptural text: ‘From this soul the ether has originated’ (Tait. 2.1), there is no mention of the origin of the sense-organs; and in the scriptural text: ‘“The non-existent, verily, was this in the beginning”. Then they said: “What was that non-existent”? “The sages, verily, were the non-existent in the beginning.” Then they said: “Who were those sages”. “The sense-organs, verily, were the sages”’ (Śat. Br. 6.1.1, 1¹), the sense-organs are declared to exist prior to creation; hence they do not originate. With regard to it, we reply: Just as the elements like the ether and the rest, mentioned in the passage: ‘From him arise the vital- breath, the mind and all the sense-organs, the ether, the air, fire’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), originate, “so the sense-organs”, too, originate.

¹ P. 499, lines 1-2.

[SŪ 2. 4. 2. ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 451 COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different, viz. he takes it to be setting down the prima facie view thus: ‘(Just as the individual soul is eternal) so are the sense-organs ¹ (as declared by Scripture ²)’. SŪTRA 2 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SECONDARY (ORIGIN)" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha It cannot be said also that in the section concerned with creation, e.g. in the passage: "From the self the ether has originated" (Tait 2 1), there being no mention of the origin of the organs, the text regarding the origin of the organs is secondary,—"on account of the impossibility of a secondary" (origin). That is, the sense-organs must have origin, as the majority of scriptural texts designate such an origin, and as, otherwise, the initial proposition that there is the knowledge of all through the knowledge of one will come to be con- tradicted Vedānta-kaustubha Having rejected the doubt,—viz. by reason of its opposition to the scriptural text: ‘“The non-existent, verily, was this in the beginning”’ (Tait. 2.7), the scriptural text about the origin of the sense-organs is secondary,—the author states the reason for the view that the sense-organs, too, originate. The compound "gauṇyāsambhava" is to be explained as ‘impos- sibility of a secondary (origin)’, i.e. the scriptural text about the origin of the sense-organs cannot be secondary. Hence the sense- organs do originate. If it be asked: Why impossible?—(we reply:) Because the scriptural text about origin can be understood literally, because there are numerous scriptural texts regarding such an origin, and because otherwise the initial proposition will come to be con- tradicted, i.e. because there are numerous scriptural texts designat- ing origination, such as: ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the ¹ Śk. B. 2.4.1, p. 168 ² I.e. Śat. Br. 6.1.1, 1—quoted by Śrīnivāsa.

452 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 2. ADH. 1.] mind and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), 'Just as small sparks come forth from fire, so exactly do all the sense-organs from this soul' (Bṛh. 2.1.20), 'Seven sense-organs arise' (Muṇḍ 2.1.7). Having made the initial assertion, viz that there is the knowledge of one through the knowledge of all thus: '"What being known, sir, all this comes to be known?"' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), the text goes on to declare, in order to prove it, that 'From him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all the sense-organs' (Mund 2 1 3) and so on. This initial proposition is proved only if all the effects, like the sense-organs and the rest, are admitted to have Him as their material cause. The scriptural text: 'The non-existent alone was this in the beginning' (Śat. Br. 6.1.1, 1), on the other hand, is to be explained as referring to the cause. Hence there is no contradiction. COMPARISON Rāmānuja He takes this and the next sūtra as one sūtra Interpretation different, viz. "(The plural number in the text ¹) is secondary, be- cause of impossibility", i.e. because prior to creation Brahman alone exists.² Śrīkaṇṭha He regards this sūtra as answering the prima facie objection. He too like Rāmānuja takes this and the next sūtra as forming a single sūtra, and interprets it just like Rāmānuja Baladeva Interpretation just like Rāmānuja's. ¹ Viz. Śat. Br. 6.1.1, 1. See Śrīnivāsa above. It has been stated under the previous sūtra that the words 'sense-organs' and 'sages' in that passage denote Brahman. But how then to account for the plural number?—to this question the present sūtra replies. ² Śrī. B. 2.4.2, p. 170, Part 2.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 3-4. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 453 SŪTRA 3 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIRECT MENTION (IN) THAT OF WHAT IS PRIOR." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the direct mention," in that text, of the verb,— used in its primary sense in connection with the ether and the rest,— in reference to the sense-organs as well, the origin of the sense-organs is primary. Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason, too, the origin of the sense-organs is primary,— so says the author. "On account of the direct mention," in "that", i.e in the text: 'From him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all the sense-organs, the ether, the air' (Muṇḍ. 2 1 3), of the word 'arises',—used in its primary sense with reference to the ether and so on,—with reference to the sense-organs, mentioned even prior to the ether and the rest,— the scriptural text designating the origin of the sense-organs is, indeed, primary. It is not possible that one and the same word 'arises' is used in a secondary sense with reference to the sense-organs, and in a primary sense with reference to the ether and the rest. For this reason too, it is used in a primary sense alone in both the cases. COMPARISON Baladeva Interpretation exactly like Rāmānuja's second half of the preced- ing sūtra.¹ SŪTRA 4 "ON ACCOUNT OF SPEECH BEING PRECEDED BY THAT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The sense-organs originate like the ether and the rest because of the mention of speech, the vital-breath and the mind as preceded by light, water and food in the passage: " 'The mind, my dear, is ¹ G.B. 2.4.3, p. 234. Chap. 2.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 4. 454 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] composed of food, the vital-breath is composed of water, speech is composed of light’” (Chānd. 6.5.4 ¹) Vedānta-kaustubha To the allegation, viz. that in the section treating of creation, the origin of the sense-organs is not mentioned,—the author replies here: On account of the mention in the Chāndogya of speech, the vital- breath and the mind as preceded by light, water and food respectively, having Brahman for their material cause, thus · ‘“The mind, my dear, is composed of food, the vital-breath is composed of water, speech is composed of light”’ (Chānd 6.5 4), there is origin (of the sense-organs). Hence it is established that the sense-organs do originate on the ground of the following reasons, viz. there is the mention of the origin (of the sense-organs) in the section treating of origin too, there are also numerous texts designating the origin of the sense-organs, and, finally, the initial assertion too that there is the knowledge of all through the knowledge of one is established only on this view. Here ends the section entitled “The origin of the sense-organs” (2). COMPARISON Rāmānuja This is sūtra 3 in his commentary. Interpretation different He continues the same topic, viz. that the word ‘prāṇa’ in the above passage does not stand for the sense-organs, but for Brahman. Hence the sūtra: “Because of speech (i.e. names of objects) being preceded by that (viz. the existence of those objects)”. That is, names of objects pre-suppose the existence of objects. But prior to creation there were no objects, and hence no speech or organs of speech and so on.² Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 3 in his commentary too. Interpretation similar to Rāmānuja’s, viz. “Because of speech (i e. names and forms) being preceded by that (i.e by the creation by the Lord).³ ¹ Ś, B. ² Śrī. B. 2.4.3, pp 170-71, Chap. 2. ³ Śk. B. 2.4.3, p. 167, Parts 7 and 8.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 5. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 455 Baladeva He also continues the same topic thus. "Because of speech (i.e. Brahman) being prior to that (viz. pradhāna and rest) ".¹ Adhikaraṇa 2: The section entitled "The going of the seven". (Sūtras 5-6) PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 5) SŪTRA 5 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE GOING OF THE SEVEN, AND ON ACCOUNT OF BEING SPECIFIED" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On the doubt, viz. whether they are seven or eleven, the prima facie view is as follows: Because of the going (of the sense-organs), mentioned in the passage: 'The vital-breath going out all the sense-organs go out' (Bṛh. 4.4.2 ²), and because of their being specified as seven only in that very passage: 'He does not see,—does not smell,—does not taste,—does not speak,—does not hear,—does not think,—does not touch' (Bṛh. 4.4.2 ³), the sense-organs are seven only. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, desirous of determining the number of the sense-organs, the author is stating the prima facie view with a view to removing the contradictions among the texts about it. On the doubt, viz whether these sense-organs are seven or eleven, (the prima facie objector replies:) "Because of the going of seven", mentioned in the passage: 'The vital-breath going out, all the sense- organs go out' (Bṛh. 4.4.2), they are seven only. How is it known that seven alone go out? "Because of (their) being specified," i.e. because in the passage: "When the person in the sun moves about back, then he becomes non-knowing of forms, he becomes one, ¹ G.B. 2.4.4, p. 235, Chap. 2. ² B. ³ Not quoted by others. The phrase: "iti āhuḥ ekī-bhavati" is to be supplied in each dotted portion.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 6. 456 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 2 ] he does not see, does not smell, does not taste, does not speak, does not hear, does not think, does not touch' (Bṛh 4.4.1-2), only seven, like the eye, etc., are specified. COMPARISON Śaṁkara According to him "gateḥ" = avagateḥ, i.e. because of under- standing.¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 6) SŪTRA 6 "BUT (THERE ARE) HANDS AND THE REST, (THESE ADDITIONAL SENSE-ORGANS) BEING ESTABLISHED, THEREFORE (THAT) IS NOT SO." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The correct conclusion is as follows It being definitely ascertained from the passage: 'The hand, verily, is an organ of sense' (Bṛh. 3.2.8 ²) and so on, that there are more than seven, it is not to be thought there are only seven sense-organs. In accordance with the scriptural passage. 'There are ten sense-organs in a person, the soul is the eleventh' (Bṛh. 3.9.4 ³), there are eleven sense-organs. Vedānta-kaustubha The author states the right conclusion. The term "but" intimates the blindness of the prima facie opponent. In the scriptural text: 'The hand, verily, is an organ of sense. It is seized by action as an over-sense-organ, for by the hands one performs action' (Bṛh. 3.2.8), "the hands and the rest", over and above the seven, are mentioned. "Therefore" the hands and the rest, over and above the seven, "being established", and in the pas- sage: 'All the sense-organs go out' (Bṛh. 4.4.2) the going out of all the sense-organs being not specified, it cannot be thought that there are only seven of them. But the fact is that there are eleven sense- organs in accordance with the scriptural and Smṛti texts: 'There 1 Ś.B. 2.4.5, p. 653. 2 Ś, Bh, B. 3 Op. cit.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 7. ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 457 are ten sense-organs in a person, the soul is the eleventh’ (Bṛh. 3.2.8), ‘The sense-organs are ten and one’ (Gītā 15 5). Among these, five are organs of knowledge, viz ear, skin, eye, tongue and nose. They have five objects, viz sound and the rest. Five are organs of action, viz. speech, hands, feet, organ of elimination and organ of generation. They have five objects like word and the rest. The internal organ is the mind, the cause of resolution and the rest In this way it is established that there are altogether eleven sense-organs Here ends the section entitled “The going of the seven” (2). COMPARISON Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva This is sūtra 5 in the commentaries of the first two, but sūtra 6 in the commentary of the last. Interpretation of the word “sthite” different, viz. “because of abiding (in the body and assisting the soul).¹ Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled “The atom- icity of the sense-organs”. (Sūtra 7) SŪTRA 7 “AND ATOMIC.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In accordance with the scriptural text regarding going out, viz.: ‘All the sense-organs go out’ (Bṛh. 4 4.2²), the sense-organs are “atomic”. Vedānta-kaustubha Now the author is showing the size of the sense-organs. On the doubt, viz. whether the sense-organs are atomic or all- pervading, the Sāṁkhyas maintain that they are all-pervasive, being effects of the unlimited ahaṁkāra. In accordance with the scriptural ¹ Śrī. B. 2 4.5, p. 173, Part 2; Śk. B. 2.4.5, p. 169, Parts 7 and 8; G.B. 2.4.6. ² R, Śk, B.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 8. 458 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.] text also: ‘These are equal and infinite’ (Bṛh. 1.5.13), they are certainly all-pervading, this is the prima facie view. The correct conclusion is that in conformity with the scriptural text about their going out, viz.: ‘The vital-breath going out, all the sense-organs go out’ (Bṛh. 4.4.2), they are atomic. There is no fixed rule that unlimited effects arise from what is unlimited, it being found that a small flower arises from a huge tree and so on. The above-quoted scriptural text, on the other hand, simply lays down that the sense-organs are innumerable, or serves the purpose of medi- tation, mentioned in the scriptural text: ‘Now who, verily, meditates on these, the infinite’ (Bṛh. 1.5.13). Hence it is established that the sense-organs are atomic. Here ends the section entitled “The atomicity of the sense-organs” (3). Adhikarana 4. The section entitled “The origin of the chief vital-breath”. (Sūtra 8) SŪTRA 8 “AND THE BEST.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “The best,” i.e. the chief vital-breath, mentioned in the scrip- tural text: ‘The vital-breath, verily, is the oldest and the best’ (Chānd. 5.1.1 ¹), originates like the great elements. Why? In conformity with the same scriptural text, viz. ‘From him arise the vital-breath’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3). Vedānta-kaustubha Now, incidentally, the origin of the chief vital-breath is being considered. On the doubt, viz. whether the chief vital-breath, the cause of the subsistence of body and mentioned in the scriptural text, viz.: ‘The vital-breath, verily, is the oldest and the best’ (Chānd. 5.1.1), originates like the great elements,—if it be suggested: It does not originate. Why? Because in the text: ‘There was neither death, nor the immortal, nor then a sign of night or day. That one breathed 1 Ś

[sū. 2. 4. 9. ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 459 without wind by its self-power. There was, verily, nothing whatso- ever other than it, or higher’ (Ṛg. V. 10.129.2¹), by the words ‘was breathing’, meaning ‘He existed breathing’, the motion of the vital- breath at the time of the universal dissolution is designated. We reply: “The chief too”, i.e. the chief vital-breath, too, originates like the elements and the rest, since in the scriptural text: ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all the sense-organs, the ether, the air’ (Muṇḍ. 2 1.3), like the origin of the great elements and the rest, the origin of the chief vital-breath, too, is mentioned; and since it is known that prior to creation there was unity alone and no diversity. The meaning of the text: ‘There was neither death’ (Ṛg. V. 10.129.2), on the other hand, is as follows: ‘Then’, i.e at the time of the universal dissolution, ‘there was no death’, the killer. There was ‘no immortal with self-power’, i e there was no food of the gods (amṛta) together with the food of fathers (svadhā). There was neither the moon, the sign of the night, nor the sun, the sign of the day. ‘That one,’ i.e. Brahman alone, the seed of the universe, ‘breathed’, i.e. existed Of what nature was He? ‘Breathless,’ i.e. without effects like the air and the rest, viz in His causal state. There was nothing other than Him, i e. Brahman. Hence it is established that like the ether and the rest, the chief vital-breath too originates from Brahman. Here ends the section entitled “The origin of the chief vital- breath” (4). Adhikaraṇa 5: The section entitled “The air and function”. (Sūtras 9—12) SŪTRA 9 “(THE VITAL-BREATH IS) NOT AIR AND FUNCTION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SEPARATE TEACHING.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The vital-breath is “not” mere “air”, nor a sense-organ, nor a “function” (of the sense-organs). But we hold that the vital-breath ¹ P. 387, lines 21–23.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 9. 460 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] is nothing but air that has assumed a different condition, “on account of the separate teaching”, viz ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all the sense-organs, the ether, the air’ (Muṇḍ. 2 1.3). Vedānta-kaustubha Now the author is stating the nature of the chief vital-breath. On the doubt, viz. whether the vital-breath, the oldest, is the air, one of the great elements, or the general function of the sense-organs, or nothing but the great element air that has assumed a different condition, if it be suggested In accordance with the statement, viz.: “What is the vital-breath that is the air. This air is five-fold, prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna, samāna”,¹ it is nothing but the air. Or else, the vital-breath is the common function of the sense-organs as held by the Sāṁkhyas ² and is of five kinds,— We reply: The vital-breath is “not the air” simply, nor a general mode consisting in the function of the sense-organs. Why? “On account of the separate teaching,” i.e. because in the text: ‘From him arise the vital breath, the mind and all the sense-organs, the ether, the air’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), the vital-breath is taught as something different from the second great element air and from the sense-organs. If the vital-breath be mere air, then this separate designation would be set aside. And, if it be a mere mode of the sense-organs, then, too, its separate designation from the possessors of the mode (viz. the sense-organs) would be futile, as what arises separately being itself an object, cannot be the function of other objects like the sense- organs. The vital-breath, thus, is nothing but the great element air that has assumed a different condition, this being the only alternative left. Hereby, any conflict with the text ‘What is the vital-breath that is the air’, too, is avoided. ¹ For the nature and function of these five modes, see V.R.M. ² Vide Sām. Sū. 2.31.

[sū. 2. 4. 10-11. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 461 SŪTRA 10 “BUT LIKE THE EYES AND THE REST, (THE VITAL-BREATH IS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE SOUL), BECAUSE OF BEING AN OBJECT TO BE TAUGHT TOGETHER WITH THEM AND SO ON.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Though the best, the vital-breath is but a special instrument of the individual soul, “like the eyes and the rest”. Why? “On account of being an object to be taught and so on,” i.e. on account of the teaching of the vital-breath together with the eyes and the rest in the dialogue among the sense-organs and so on. The author shows that the vital-breath, being under the control of the individual soul, is serviceable to the soul like the eyes and the rest Vedānta-kaustubha The meaning of the term “but” is that in spite of its superiority to the sense-organs, no independence is possible on the part of the vital-breath, as is possible on the part of the individual soul. The vital-breath is “like the eyes and the rest”. That is, just as the eyes and the rest are instruments of the individual soul, so the vital-breath is a special instrument of the individual soul. To the question: Whence is it known that it is an instrument of the soul?—We reply: “Because of being an object to be taught together with them”, i.e. because of the teaching of the vital-breath together with them, i.e. together with the eyes and the rest, in the dialogue among the sense- organs. By the phrase: “and so on”, reasons like non-sentience, incapability of self-dependence and the rest are implied. SŪTRA 11 “AND (THERE IS) NO FAULT ON THE GROUND OF (ITS) NOT BEING A SENSE-ORGAN, FOR THUS (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected: If the vital-breath be an instrument of the individual soul, then there being no activity suitable to it, there must be fault “on the ground of (its) not being a sense-organ”,—

[SŪ. 2. 4 11. 462 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] (We reply:) “no”, since the scriptural text: ‘ “I alone, dividing myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3 ¹), “shows” that the holding up of the body is the peculiar function of the vital- breath. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected. Just as one can be a perceiver only if there be some object to be perceived, so a thing may be an instrument only if there be some function to be accomplished by it; and this is not found. Hence the vital-breath cannot be a sense-organ Thus, as the vital-breath is not a sense-organ, so if it be an instrument of the individual soul, it is but a futile one,— We reply: “No”. There is no such fault. “For,” i.e. since, in order that the vital-breath may be serviceable as an instrument of the individual soul, the holy Scripture “shows”, under the dialogue among the sense-organs, that a purpose is served by the vital-breath as well—one that cannot be served by the sense-organs,—viz. the holding up of the body and the sense-organs: ‘The chief vital-breath said to them: “Do not fall in delusion. It is I alone who, dividing myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara According to them the word “akaraṇatvāt” answers the prima facie, viz. that if the vital-breath be an organ of the soul, then there must be a sense-object for it, like colour for the eyes and so on. The answer is that there need be no sense-object, since the vital-breath is not an organ like the eyes and the rest. Still it is not devoid of a function, the holding of the body being its special function.² Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva According to them, the word “akaraṇatvāt” means: “On account of not having a function”. That is, no objection can be raised on ¹ Ś. ² Ś.B. 2.4.11, pp 662-63; Bh. B. 2.4.11, p. 148.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 12. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 463 the ground that the vital-breath has no special activity, for it does have a special function ¹ SŪTRA 12 “(THE VITAL-BREATH) HAVING FIVE MODES IS DESIGNATED LIKE THE MIND.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Just as the mind having many modes serves the individual soul through its own modes like desire and the rest, so the vital-breath, too, “having five modes, is designated” as serving the soul through its modes like apāna and the rest. Vedānta-kaustubha The author points out that the same vital-breath is designated as manifold through the difference of modes, but these latter are not separate entities The vital-breath does not serve the soul by only holding up the body, but by other functions too. Just as in conformity with the text: ‘Desire, resolution, doubt, faith,—², firmness, lack of firmness, bashfulness, meditation, fear,— all these are the mind alone’ (Bṛh. 1.5.3), the mind alone, possessed of desire and the rest as its modes, serves the individual soul through its own modes, but desire, resolution and the rest are not special kinds of entities, so by the text: ‘The prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna, samāna—all these are the vital-breath’ (Bṛh 1.5.3), the vital-breath alone “is designated as having five modes”. The apāna and the rest are the modes of the vital-breath itself, but not separate entities, and it serves the soul through its own modes,—this is the sense. This being so, it is established that the vital-breath is the air itself that has assumed a different condition, an instrument of the individual soul, possessed of many modes and is the best. Here ends the section entitled “The air and function” (5). ¹ Śrī. B. 2.4.10, p. 177, Part 2, Madras ed.; Śk. B. 2.4.10, p. 174, Parts 7 and 8; G.B. 2.4.11. ² “Lack of faith.”