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

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.”

464 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 13-14. ADH. 6-7.] Adhikaraṇa 6. The section entitled "The atom- icity of the best". (Sūtra 13) SŪTRA 13 "AND ATOMIC" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In accordance with the scriptural text designating departure, the vital-breath, too, is "atomic". Vedānta-kaustubha Now the size of the chief vital-breath is being considered. On the doubt, viz. whether the chief vital-breath is great in size or atomic,—if the suggestion be: In accordance with the scriptural texts: 'Everything is installed in the vital-breath' (Praśna 2.6), "For all this is covered by the vital-breath", it is great in size,— We reply: The vital-breath, the best, too, should be known to be "atomic", in accordance with the scriptural text: "He going out, the vital-breath goes out after him" (Bṛh. 4.4.2). The above scrip- tural texts, on the other hand, refer to the vital-breath in its collective aspect. Hence, it is established that the best (viz. the chief vital- breath) is atomic. Here ends the section entitled "The atomicity of the best" (6). Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled "The super- intending of fire and the rest". (Sūtras 14-18) SŪTRA 14 "BUT THE SUPERINTENDING OF FIRE AND THE REST, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECLARATION OF THAT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The sense-organs proceed to their respective functions as initiated by the divinities like fire and the rest, in accordance with the scrip- tural text: 'Fire becoming speech entered into the mouth' (Ait. 1.2.4 ¹). 1 Ś, B.

[sū. 2. 4. 14. VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 465 ADH. 7.] Vedānta-kaustubha Now, the activity of the sense-organs is being discussed. On the doubt, viz. whether the sense-organs like the eye and the rest proceed to their respective objects through their own power alone, or as initiated by their respective presiding divinities,—the suggestion being: Through their own power, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘For by the eyes one sees colours’ (Bṛh. 3.9.20),— We reply: “Fire and so on”. The term “but” is meant for disposing of the prima facie view. Speech and the rest function only as superintended by fire and so on, i.e by the divinities like fire and so on. The word “superintending” means that which is super- intended or initiated, 1.e. an object to be initiated. Just as chariots and the rest move as superintended by charioteers and others, so is the case here. Why? “On account of the declaration of that”, i.e. “on account of the declaration”, or mention, in the sacred text, “of that” or of the fact of their being superintended by fire and the rest,¹ thus: ‘Fire becoming speech entered into the mouth, the air becoming the vital-breath entered into the nose, the sun becoming sight entered into the eyes’ (Ait. 1.2.4). If there be no relation of the initiated and the initiator, the entering of the fire and the rest must become meaningless. The scriptural text: ‘For by the eyes’ (Bṛh. 3.9.20) and so on should be known to have served its purpose by proving simply that the eyes and the rest are sense-organs. COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha They read this and the next sūtra as one sūtra, interpreting it differently thus: “But the rule of the fire and the rest with the bearer of the vital-breath (i.e. the individual soul) (over the sense-organs is) on account of the thinking of that (viz. the Lord), in accordance with scriptural text.” That is, we learn from Scripture that the fire-god and the rest, as well as the individual soul rule over the sense-organs, but their rule depends on the will of the Lord.²

¹ This explains the compound “tad-āmananāt”. ² Śrī. B. 2.4.14, pp. 181-82, Part 1, Madras ed.; Śk. B. 2.4.14, p. 178, Parts 7 and 8. 30

[SŪ. 2. 4. 15. 466 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.] Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. “But the light (jyotiḥ) is the prime ruler (ādyadhiṣṭhāna), on account of the declaration of that.” That is, the Lord is the primary initiator of the sense-organs, while the fire-god and the rest, and the individual soul are secondary initiators.¹ SŪTRA 15 “WITH THE POSSESSOR OF THE VITAL-BREATH, ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIPTURAL TEXT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is a servant-master relation between the sense-organs and the individual soul alone. The soul is the enjoyer, “on account of the scriptural text”: ‘Now where the eye has entered into the ether, that is the seeing person: the eye is for seeing’ (Chānd. 8.12.4²). Vedānta-kaustubha If this be so, then enjoyment, too, may pertain to the gods,—to this the author replies: The possessor of the vital-breath is one who has the vital-breath, the cause of the holding up of the body and the sense-organs. The sense-organs have a servant-master relation “with the possessor of the vital-breath”, i.e. with the individual soul. This being so, the possessor of the vital-breath alone is the enjoyer of objects through the sense-organs,—this is the sense. Why? “On account of scriptural text”, i.e. on account of the scriptural text: ‘Now, where the eye has entered into the ether, that is the seeing person; the eye is for seeing’ (Chānd. 8.12.4). ¹ G.B. 2.4.14, p. 249, Chap. 2. ² Ś, B.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 16. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 467 SŪTRA 16 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE ETERNITY OF THAT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the eternity" of the above relationship with the individual soul alone, but not with the presiding deities. Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason, too, the enjoyer of the fruits, accomplishable by the sense-organs, is their master, the possessor of the vital-breath alone, but their presiding deities are not such enjoyers, "on account of the eternity of that", i.e. because there is an eternal relation between the sense-organs and the possessor of the vital-breath alone, as proved by the scriptural text: 'He going out the vital-breath goes out after him. The vital-breath going out all the sense-organs go out after it' (Bṛh. 4 4.2). The gods, on the other hand, abide in highest lordship, and not in what is wretched (viz. the body), in accordance with the scriptural text; 'Evil, verily, does not approach the gods' (Brh. 1 5 20¹). COMPARISON All others add a "ca" in the middle thus: "Tasya ca nityatvāt". Śaṃkara The interpretation of the word "tasya" different, viz.: "Because of the eternity of that (viz. of the individual soul)". That is, the individual soul alone abides permanently in the body as the enjoyer, but the deities cannot do so.² Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 14 in their commentaries. Interpretation different: On account of the eternity of that (viz. of the attribute of being ruled by the Lord). That is, all objects are eternally ruled by the Lord alone. Hence it follows that the rule of the sense-organs by the deities and the individual soul really depends upon the will of the Lord.³ ¹ Reading: "pāpam" and not "anagham". Vide Bṛh. 1.5.20, p. 70. ² Ś.B. 2.4.16, pp. 667-68. ³ Śrī. B. 2.4.14, p. 182, Part 2; Śk. B. 2.4.14, pp. 178-79, Parts 7 and 8.

468 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 17. ADH. 7.] Baladeva Interpretation different, viz And on account of the eternity of that, (i.e. of the relationship between the Lord and the gods) That is, there being an eternal relation between the gods and the Lord, the real ruler, the gods rule the sense-organs and so on, through the mere will of the Lord ¹ —————————————————— SŪTRA 17 "THEY (ARE) SENSE-ORGANS, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF THOSE AS OTHER THAN THE BEST." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the designation of those," i.e. of sense-organs, as different from the chief in the passage: 'From him arise the vital- breath, the mind and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3 ²), "they", i.e. the sense-organs, are different entities called 'sense-organs', but not particular modes of the chief. Vedānta-kaustubha Apprehending the objection, viz. in conformity with the scrip- tural text: '"Come, let us all become a form of him." Of him alone, they became a form' (Bṛh. 1.5 21 ³), other sense-organs, like the eye and the rest, are different modes of the chief vital-breath. They are not separate entities and cannot, therefore, have a separate re- lation with the possessor of the vital-breath (viz. the individual soul), our purpose being served if they have a relation with the vital-breath alone,—the author replies here. "On account of the designation of those," i.e. of them "as different from the chief" vital-breath in the passage: 'From him arise the vital- breath, the mind and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), separate entities indeed are designated by the scriptural text: 'Those prāṇas 1 G.B. 2.4.16, p. 250, Chap. 2. 2 Ś. Bh., B. 3 Vide Bṛh. 1.5.21 for the story. When the different sense-organs were created by Prajāpati, death came and overcame them all, with the exception of the vital-breath. Thereupon, the sense-organs decided to assume the form of the vital-breath.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 18. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 469 other than the chief, are the sense-organs' Otherwise, the eye and the rest too being understood—like apāna and so on—simply by the phrase. 'From him arise the vital-breath', the separate mention: 'and all the sense-organs' must be meaningless. Hence the sense- organs being separate entities, their relation with the possessor of the vital-breath or the individual soul must be depicted to be certainly different from their relation with the vital-breath. It cannot be said also that the mind too, which is separately designated, cannot be a sense-organ,—since in accordance with the Smṛti passages, viz.. "The sense-organs of which the mind is the sixth" (Gītā 15.7), "The sense-organs are ten and one" (Gītā 13 6), as well as in accordance with the scriptural text: 'There are ten sense-organs in a person, the soul is the eleventh' (Bṛh. 3.9 4), the mind as well is admitted to be a sense-organ. The separate designation of the mind, too, is not futile, since the mind being the leader of the sense-organs in conformity with the text: '"And of the sense-organs, I am the mind"' (Gītā 10.22), such a separate mention has a meaning. By the scriptural text: '"Come let us assume all become a form of him alone"' (Bṛh. 1.5.21), on the other hand, it is denoted simply that the activities of the sense-organs are under the control of the vital-breath. The sense-organs, also, being under the vital-breath, are called 'vital- breaths',¹ just as in the text: 'All this verily, is Brahman' (Chānd. 3.14.1), the term 'Brahman' has been applied to the world, it being under His control. SŪTRA 18 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL TEXT REGARDING DIFFERENCE AND ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the scriptural mention of the difference" of the chief vital-breath from speech and the rest at the end of the section treating of speech, etc. thus: 'Then, verily, they said to the breath in the mouth' (Bṛh. 1.3.7²); "and on account of the difference" of the sense-organs, the apprehenders of sense-objects, from the best vital-breath, the cause of the subsistence of the body, the sense-organs and the rest,—they are separate entities. ¹ Prāṇa. ² Ś, Bh.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 19. 470 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 8.] Vedānta-kaustubha Having begun thus: 'They said to speech' (Bṛh. 1.3.2), and having concluded the section treating of speech and the rest, destroyed by the demons, Scripture goes on to declare the chief vital-breath as different from the sense-organs like speech, etc. in a passage in a different section: 'Then, verily, they said to the breath in the mouth' (Bṛh. 1.3.7) There is also a great difference between them, such as: the best vital-breath is the cause of the holding up of the body, the sense-organs and so on, while the sense-organs have speech and the rest for their objects, and so on. Hence, the sense-organs are different from the chief vital-breath,—this is the sense. Thus it is established that the sense-organs ¹,—presided over by the gods, connected with the individual soul, and denoted by the term 'sense- organ',—are different from the best vital-breath. Here ends the section entitled "The superintending of fire and the rest" (7). COMPARISON Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva They divide this sūtra into two different sūtras, thus: "Bheda- śruteḥ" and "Vailakṣaṇāc ca". Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "The making of name and form". (Sūtras 19–21) SŪTRA 19 "BUT THE MAKING OF NAME AND FORM (IS THE FUNCTION) OF HIM WHO RENDERS TRIPARTITE, ON ACCOUNT OF TEACHING." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The evolution of names and forms too,—mentioned in the texts: 'That divinity thought: "Come, let me, having entered into these ¹ Prāṇas.

[SŪ. 2. 4 19. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 471 three deities with this living soul, evolve name and forms"' (Chānd 6.3.2 ¹), '"Let me make each of them tripartite"' (Chānd. 6.3 3 ²)— is the work of the Supreme Being alone "who renders tripartite". He alone who made each of the deities tripartite is the creator of names and forms like fire, sun and the rest. Why? Because beginning thus: 'That divinity' (Chānd. 6.3.2), the text goes on to teach that the evolution (of names and forms) is due to the Supreme Deity thus: '"Let me, having entered with this living soul, evolve name and form"' ³ (Chānd. 6.3.2). Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, there being an enquiry with regard to the characteristic marks of the object which one should desire to enquire into (viz. Brahman), it has been established in the preceding chapter ⁴, that He is the cause of the world. Here, on the other hand, with a view to confirming it and demonstrating the cause of the world as held by us, it has been firmly established, after an examination of the cause as designated by others, ⁵ that the ether and the rest are created by Brahman. Then, the author is, now, removing a doubt as to whether the evolution of name and form is due to the Supreme Brahman—a doubt arising from the word 'individual soul' in the scriptural text to be cited hereafter. The evolution of name and form is mentioned in the Chāndogya, under the section teaching of the Existent, in the passages: 'That divinity thought: "Come, let me, having entered into these three deities with the living soul (jīvātman), evolve name and form"' (Chānd. 6.3.2), '"Let me make each of them tripartite"' (Chānd. 6.3.3). The question is: Is this evolution due to the individual soul or to the Supreme Soul? If it be suggested: To the individual soul alone, as indicated by the phrase: 'having entered with this living soul',— We reply. The word "but" is meant for disposing of the prima facie view. "The making of name and form," i.e the evolution of name and form, can be the work "of one who renders tripartite", i.e. of the Supreme Soul alone, omniscient and omnipotent who made ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ² Op. cit. ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ⁴ Vide Br. Sū. 1.1.2. ⁵ In the 2nd pāda of the 2nd chap.