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

524 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 12. ADH 5.] and nirviśeṣa) (are possible) on the part of the Highest, for everywhere (Scripture declares it to be nirviśeṣa)” That is, in Scripture two classes of texts are found, one designating Brahman as possessed of difference, the other designating Brahman as devoid of difference This gives rise to a doubt, viz. whether Brahman is both saviśeṣa and nirviśeṣa The answer is that one and the same thing cannot have two different natures Hence Brahman cannot be saviśeṣa even through the limiting adjuncts which do not change its real nature, but only conceals it for the time being.¹ Bhāskara Interpretation absolutely different, viz “Not even on account of place (viz the world and the rest), two-fold characteristics (viz. sākāra and nirākāra) (are possible) on the part of the Highest, because everywhere (Scripture declares Him to be nirākāra)”. That is, although Brahman has two forms—causal or nirākāra and effected or sākāra,—yet He is to be meditated on in His Nirākāra aspect only, which is His real form and which He never loses even when He comes to have a connection with the world and the rest.² Baladeva Interpretation absolutely different, viz. “Not even on account of place (i.e. by the mere fact of His being in two places), two-fold characteristics (i e. changes of nature) (are possible) on the part of the Highest, because everywhere (He is present simultaneously)” That is, though the Lord manifests himself in various places, yet by reason of His mysterious power, He Himself undergoes no change.³ SŪTRA 12 “IF IT BE OBJECTED: ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE, (WE REPLY ) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE STATEMENT OF WHAT IS NOT THAT IN EACH CASE ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected· Because of its connection with the body, the imperfections arising from the difference of states, do indeed pertain ¹ Ś.B. 3.2.11, p 724, lines 8–17. ² Bh. B. 3.2.11, pp. 164-165 ³ G.B. pp. 54-55, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3 2. 12. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 525 to the individual soul, though endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest. Likewise they may belong to the Highest as well—we reply. “no”, because nowhere there is any text desig- nating imperfections on the part of the Inner Controller, on the contrary, there are texts about His immortality, viz ‘ “He is your soul, the inner controller, immortal” ’ (Brh. 3.7 3, etc ¹) Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected · The individual soul passes through many different states and assumes many different bodies (such as human, divine and so on), and hence the stated imperfections do indeed pertain to the individual soul, though it is naturally endowed with the attri- butes of freedom from sins and the rest, established by the statement of Prajāpati, recorded in the Chāndogya ² Likewise, the Lord too, the Inner Controller of all, has to pass through many different states and come into contact with many different bodies. Hence, those imperfections may pertain to the Highest as well, naturally endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest,— We reply: “No”. Why ? “On account of the statement of what is not that in each case,” i.e. because there is no text designating the imperfections of the Highest Person “in each case”, i e. in any state The stated imperfections pertain to the individual soul,— which though endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, has yet its real nature concealed through the wish of the Highest, in accordance with its karmas,³—but never to the Highest who has His real nature ever-manifest. Thus, in reference to the state of waking, there are texts establishing the imperfections of the individual soul, such as: “Those who are of a stinking conduct attain a stinking birth” (Chānd 5.10.7) and so on, but none referring to the imperfections of the Highest. Then, in reference to the state of dream, there are texts like . “When one sees a black person with black teeth in his dream, he (i e. the black person) kills him (i.e. the dreamer” (Ait. Ār. 3 2 4 ⁴) and so on; and in reference to deep

¹ Repeated altogether 20 times (once at the end of each verse) up to the end of the section beginning with verse 3.7.3. R, ŚK. ² Vide Chānd. 8.7 1, 3 ³ Vide V.K. 3 2.5. ⁴ P 136-137

[SŪ. 3. 2. 12. 526 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] sleep, there are texts like. “All creatures go to this world of Brahman day by day, (yet) do not find it, for they are carried away by untruth” (Chānd. 8 3 2) and so on,—all referring to the individual soul, but not to the Highest Similarly, it should be understood that in reference to death and the rest as well there is ‘statement of what is not that’ Our view is further confirmed by the texts designating the immor- tality of the Inner Controller and proving His faultlessness, viz.. ‘ “He is your soul, the inner controller, the immortal ” ’ (Bṛh 3.7.3, etc ). The same text is repeated in connection with each of the objects to be controlled,—beginning with the earth, water, fire and sky, and ending with the skin, understanding and semen ¹,—men- tioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka in the text which begins “He who dwelling in the earth is other than the earth, whom the earth does not know, of whom the earth is the body, who rules the earth from within” (Bṛh. 3 7.3). COMPARISON Śaṁkara Reading different, viz. adds “na” in the beginning thus: “Na bhedāt . . .”. Interpretation also different, viz.: “If it be objected that (Brahman is) not (nirviśeṣa), on account of difference (of forms), (we reply:) No, on account of the statement of what is not that in each case”. That is, it may be objected that since Brahman is desig- nated by Scripture as having various forms, e.g. as having four feet, sixteen parts and so on, it must be held to be saviśeṣa, i.e. possessed of attributes and forms; and there is no contradiction involved here in taking Brahman to be so, the difference of Brahman’s forms being due to limiting adjuncts. That is, Brahman is both saviśeṣa and nirviśeṣa according to Scripture. To this the reply is that Scripture depicts Brahman as nirviśeṣa only, even though it mentions its dif- ferent forms, due to limiting adjuncts,—for in every passage describing such adjuncts of Brahman, it is itself described as free from all diver- sity. Such designations are for the purpose of meditation only, but their real meaning is non-difference only ² ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ Vide Bṛh. 3.7.3–3.7.23. ² “Bhedasya upāsanārthatvād abhede tātparyyāt.” Ś.B. 3.2.14, p. 725.

[sū. 3. 2. 13. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 527 Bhāskara Interpretation absolutely different. He continues the topic of the Nirākāra-upāsanā of Brahman. Hence the sūtra “If it be objected that on account of difference, (1.e. on account of the corporeal and incorporeal forms of Brahman as designated in Scripture,) (Brahman is not to be worshipped in his casual or formless aspect) (we reply·) no, on account of the statement of what is not that in each case, (1.e. because there is no text which designates difference on the part of Brahman due to limiting adjuncts)”.¹ Hence everywhere the one Brahman is to be worshipped Baladeva Reading different, vız. like Śamkara, he adds a “na” in the beginning. Interpretation too different. He continues the theme of the previous sūtra, viz. the oneness of the Lord in spite of His various manifestations in different places. Hence the sūtra: “If it be objected that on account of difference (i e because the manifes- tations of the Lord are different), (the oneness of the Lord, alleged above, is not possible), (we reply:) no, because there is the statement of the absence of that (viz difference) with regard to each (of these manifestations)”. That is, with regard to each of the manifestations of the Lord, Scripture is careful to point out that He is one.² SŪTRA 13 “MOREOVER THUS SOME (TEACH).” “Moreover” the followers of “some” branch teach. “One of these two eats the sweet berry, the other, without eating, looks on” (Rg. V. 1.164 20;³ Muṇḍ. 3.1.1; Śvet. 4 6⁴) Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “Moreover”, the followers of “some” branch teach that though the individual soul and the Supreme Lord abide in the same place, it is the individual soul alone that is subject to karmas and 1 Bh. B. 3 2.12, p. 165. 2 G.B. 3 2.12, pp. 55-56, Chap. 2. 3 P. 146, lines 1-3. 4 R, ŚK.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 14. 528 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.] participates in imperfections, but not the Highest who is not subject to karmas, thus: "Two birds, close friends, cling to the same tree. Of these two, one eats the sweet berry; the other, without eating, looks on" (Ṛg V. 1.164.20; Muṇḍ. 3.1.1, Śvet. 4.6). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara They quote from the Kaṭha and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣads ¹ to show that Scripture teaches the essential non-difference of Brahman.² Baladeva He quotes from the Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad ³ to show that the Lord is one, though appearing as many.⁴ SŪTRA 14 "FOR (BRAHMAN) IS WITHOUT FORM (I.E. NOT AN ENJOYER) INDEED, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING THE PRINCIPAL (AGENT) WITH REGARD TO THAT (VIZ. CREATION OF NAMES AND FORMS)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The Highest is the principal agent, the creator of names and forms, as declared by the text: " 'Let me evolve name and form' " (Chānd 6.3.2 ⁵). Hence He is not the enjoyer of the names and forms to be created by Himself, and as such Brahman is "without form". Hence Brahman is not touched even by an odour of imperfections. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. There may not be any imperfections on the part of Brahman even on account of place; still as the creator of names and forms, Brahman must be their enjoyer too, for generally a creator creates objects for enjoying them. Names and forms ¹ Kaṭha. 4.11; Śvet. 1.12. ² Ś.B. 3.2.13, p. 725; Bh. B. ³ Muṇḍ. 7 ⁴ G.B. 3.2.13, p. 58, Chap. 3, ⁵ Not quoted by others.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 14, ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 529 are known to have Brahman as their creator from the use of the first person in the text: ' "Let me evolve name and form " ' (Chānd. 6.3.2). Hence it is established that the Supreme Brahman is subject to kar- mas, and every imperfection is possible on the part of one who is subject to karmas,—the author replies: One to whom the forms together with the names,—such as the divine bodies and the rest, created by Brahman in accordance with the works of the individual soul,—are not objects of enjoyment is "without form". Hence Brahman, who is "without form indeed" does not proceed to evolve names and forms for His own enjoyment, since all His desires are eternally fulfilled The word "for" indicates the absence of all imperfections, arising from the material names and forms, on the part of Brahman. Why? "On account of being the principal (agent) with regard to that," i e. because "with regard to that", or with regard to that act, Brahman is the principal agent, the creator of names and forms, in accordance with the scriptural text. "The ether, verily, is the creator of names and forms" (Chānd. 8.14.1.). That the Highest creates names and forms for the sake of the individual soul, is indicated by the words 'by the individual soul' (jīvena).¹ The individual soul, possessed of the stated marks, is a part of Brahman ; and Brahman, the Whole, dwells in it, in accordance with the scriptural text: "He who dwelling in the soul" (Śat Br. 14.6.7 30 ²). Here,³ any activity in connection with the creation of names and forms being impossible on the part of a mere part (viz. the individual soul), the term 'individual soul' refers to Brahman, the Whole, acting for the good of the part. Hence the two words 'jīvena' and 'ātmanā' refer to the same object (viz. Brahman). The individual soul being subject to karmas is connected with these forms, and hence imperfections are possible on its part. But Brahman, though the creator of names and forms in accordance with the works of the individual souls, is not the enjoyer of their fruits, and as such the stated imperfections can never pertain to Him. Hence Brahman is possessed of a two-fold characteristic. ¹ Vide Chānd. 6.3.2—"Anena jīven-ātmanā anupraviśya nāma-rūpe vyā- karavāṇi". ² P. 1074, line 18. ³ Viz. in the above passage—Chānd 6.3.2.

[sū. 3. 2 15. 530 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.] COMPARISON Śaṃkara Interpretation different, viz. “For (Brahman is) without form (i.e nirākāra) only (and not both sākāra and nirākāra), because of the primariness of that (viz. of the texts teaching that Brahman is form- less)”. That is, the texts which attribute forms to Brahman are not the main purport of Scripture, since they simply enjoin medita- tion, and do not set forth the real nature of Brahman ¹ Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz. “For (Brahman is) without form indeed, because He is the principal (being) ² After this sūtra, Bhāskara reads an additional sūtra, not found in the commentaries of others, which is as follows: “Asthūlam ananv- ahrasvam-adīrgham-aśabdam asparśam-arūpam-avyayam”, meaning “(Brahman is) non-gross, non-fine, non-short, non-long, without sound, without touch, without form, immutable” Hence such a nirākāra or formless Brahman is to be worshipped, and not the sākāra Brahman.³ Baladeva He begins a new adhikaraṇa here concerned with the question of the form of Brahman (four sūtras). Hence the sūtra: “For (Brah- man is) without a form, because that (viz the form) is the chief (viz. Brahman)”. That is, Brahman is formless in the sense that He has not the form, but is the form itself, since the body of Brahman is identical with Brahman Himself.⁴ SŪTRA 15 “AND (BRAHMAN IS) POSSESSED OF LIGHT, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING NOT DEVOID OF MEANING.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Untouched by darkness, “possessed of light”—Brahman, pos- sessed of such a two-fold characteristic, is designated by one text. ¹ Ś B. 3.2.14, p. 726. ² Bh. B, 3.2.14, p. 166. ³ Bh. B. 3 2 15, p. 166. ⁴ G B 3.2 14, p. 59, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 15. ADH. 5] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 531 "Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness" (Vj.S. 31.18 ¹, Tait. Ār. 3 13.1; Śvet. 3.8;² Gītā 8 9 ³), on account of the text being not devoid of meaning. Vedānta-kaustubha The view that Brahman is possessed of a two-fold characteristic is being confirmed once more. Brahman "possessed of light",—that which has light for its attribute is 'possessed of light',—and untouched by the imperfections of the objects to be lighted, as implied by the term "and" (in the sūtra), is possessed of a two-fold characteristic Why? On account of the texts being not devoid of meaning, viz. "He alone shining everything shines after him Through his light all this shines" (Kaṭha. 5.15, Muṇḍ. 2.2.10; Śvet. 6.14), "Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness" (Vj.S. 31.18; Tait. Ār. 3.13.1; Śvet. 3.8; Gītā 8 9) and so on. This aphorism is for showing that one text after another denotes Brahman as possessed of a two-fold characteristic COMPARISON Śaṃkara Interpretation absolutely different, viz. "And (Brahman is) like light, on account of non-futility of texts (which designate Brahman as possessed of a form)" That is, just as the light of the sun or the moon, though pervading the entire expanse of the heaven and having no particular shape as such, appears straight, crooked and so on when passing through a finger which is straight, crooked and so on, so Brah- man appears as the Universe through its connection with the limiting adjunct. Hence it is that the texts which designate Brahman as having the form of the Universe and so on are not absolutely devoid of meaning, but serve the purpose of meditation.⁴ Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different, viz "And on account of the non-futility (of texts designating Brahman as possessed of all auspicious qualities and devoid of all imperfections)". That is, just as (the texts designat- ing Brahman as) light such as: "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite"

¹ P. 857, lines 10-11. ² P. 201 ³ Not quoted by others. ⁴ Ś.B. 3 2.15, pp. 726-27.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 16. 532 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.] (Tait 2.1) establish Brahman to be self-manifesting, so certain texts prove Him to be possessed of two-fold characteristics, viz. having all auspicious qualities on the one hand and being free from all defects on the other, both kinds of texts having a definite meaning.¹ Bhāskara Reading slightly different, viz. substitutes "vā" in place of "ca".² Baladeva Interpretation absolutely different, viz. continues the same topic about the body of the Lord thus; "And because of the non-futility (of this conception of the form or body of the Lord) as in the case of light". That is, just as, though the sun is pure light yet is conceived as having a definite form for the purpose of meditation, so the Lord, though a pure light of knowledge and bliss, is yet conceived to have a form for the purpose of meditation.³ SŪTRA 16 "AND (A SENTENCE IS NOT MEANINGLESS WHEN IT) STATES THAT ONLY" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha When a text "states that only" or its real meaning only, then indeed it is not meaningless Vedānta-kaustubha Now, what makes a text have a meaning or be devoid of meaning? When a scriptural text "states that only", i.e. its real meaning only, then it is not meaningless. The term "and" implies that if it be taken, by foolish persons, to be referring to what is not its subject-matter, then it becomes meaningless. This being so, the texts designating the two-fold characteristics of Brahman being ¹ Śrī. B. 3.2.15, p. 232, Part 2; ŚK. B. 3.2.16, p. 247, Part 9 ² Bh B. 3.2 15, p. 166. ³ G.B. 3.2.15, p. 60, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3. 2. 16. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 533 mutually non-contradictory, are literally true and authoritative,— this is the implied meaning. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different as before, viz. “And (Scripture declares that only, (viz. that Brahman is pure, non-differentiated conscious- ness)”.¹ Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different, viz. “And (texts like ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite’) declare that only”, viz. only that Brahman is self-manifesting, but does not deny that Brahman has other qualities, such as, being capable of realizing all His wishes at once and so on, known from other texts This sūtra and the next answer, according to them, the prima facie view, viz. that texts like “Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite” (Tait. 2 1) only designate Brahman as devoid of all differences and self-manifesting by nature; while, on the other hand, texts like: “Not so, not so” (Bṛh. 2.3.6) prove the qualities of Brahman, such as Omniscience and so on, to be false Hence Brahman cannot be said to be possessed of two-fold character- istics, viz having all auspicious qualities and beng free from all defects whatsoever ² Baladeva He continues the same topic about the body of the Lord, viz. “And (Scripture) declares that only, (viz. that the body of the Lord is the Lord himself)”. That is, it must not be thought, on the ground of the previous aphorism, that Brahman has no actual form, but is conceived to have a form for the sake of meditation only, for Scripture declares that the Lord does possess a form and that this form is not different from Him, but the very essence of His self ³

¹ Ś B. 3.2.16, p. 727; Bh B 3.2.17, p. 166. ² Śrī B 3 2.16, p. 232, Part 2, ŚK B. 3.2.16, pp. 247-248, Part 9. ³ G.B 3.2.16, p. 429, Chap 3. “Atra dehād bhinno dehit-y-evam bhideśvara-vastuni nāsti, kimtu deha eva dehīti labdham.”

[sū. 3. 2. 17. 534 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.] SŪTRA 17 "AND (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS (THIS), THEN (IT IS) DECLARED BY SMRTI TOO." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Numerous texts like: "The Soul that is free from sins" (Chānd. 8.7.1, 3 ¹), "Without parts, without action, tranquil, irreproachable, stainless" (Śvet. 16.19 ²), "Having true desires, having true resolves" (Chānd. 8.1 5; 8.7 13 ³) and so on, prove that Brahman is possessed of a double characteristic. "Then" it is "declared by Smṛti too", thus: '"I am beyond the perishable and am superior to even the imperishable Hence in the world and in the Veda I am proclaimed to be the Highest Person"' (Gītā 15.18 ⁴), '"I am the origin of all, everything proceeds from me"' (Gītā. 10.8 ⁵), '"Or, what is the use of so much knowledge to you, O Arjuna? Having pervaded this entire Universe with one part of mine, I abide"' (Gītā 10 42 ⁶) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha "And" the mass of scriptural texts "shows" that Brahman is indeed possessed of a two-fold characteristic, viz. "The soul that is free from sins" (Chānd 8.7 1, 3), "Without parts, without action, tranquil, irreproachable, stainless" (Śvet. 6.19), "Having true desires, having true resolves" (Chānd. 8.1.5; 8.7 1, 3), "He who is omnis- cient, all-knowing" (Muṇḍ. 1 1.9, 2.2.7), "Supreme is his power, declared to be of various kinds indeed; natural is the operation of his knowledge and power" (Śvet. 6.8), "Him who is the supreme and Great Lord of lords; him, who is the supreme God of gods" (Śvet. 6.7), "He is the cause, the cause of the lord of causes" (Śvet. 6.9c ⁷), "Of him there is no progenitor whatsoever, nor a lord" (Śvet. 6.9 a-b), "This is one bliss of Brahman" (Tait 2 8), "He who knows the bliss of Brahman does not fear anything" (Tait. 2.4) and so on. This is "declared by Smṛti too" thus · '"I am beyond the perishable and am superior to even the imperishable Hence in the world and in the Veda I am proclaimed to be the Highest Person"' (Gītā 15.18), ¹ Not quoted by others. ² R, ŚK ³ Not quoted by others ⁴ Not quoted by others. ⁵ Op cit. ⁶ R. ⁷ Correct quotation: "Karaṇādhipādhipa", meaning the lord of the lord of sense-organs, viz. the individual soul Vide Śvet. 6.9, p. 70.

[sū. 3 2. 18. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 535 '"I am the origin of the entire world, likewise the dissolution"' (Gītā 7 6), '"He who knows me unborn, without beginning and the Great Lord of the world"' (Gītā 10.3), '"The multitudes of gods do not know my origin, nor the great sages"' (Gītā 10.2), '"Having pervaded this entire world with a part of mine, I abide"' (Gītā 10.42), '"There is nothing higher than me, O Dhanañjaya"' (Gītā 7.7), '"For I am the enjoyer of all sacrifices, and the lord indeed"' (Gītā 9.24) and so on. COMPARISON Śaṁkara He quotes from Scripture (Bṛh. 2 3 6, etc.) and Smṛti to show that Brahman is nirviśeṣa or absolutely free from differences.¹ Bhāskara He quotes from Scripture (Śvet. 6.13) and Smṛti (Gītā 8.9) to show that Brahman is self-manifest by nature.² Baladeva He quotes from Scripture (Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī) and Smṛti (Brahma-saṁhitā) to show that the body of the Lord is identical with the Lord Himself.³ SŪTRA 18 "AND FOR THAT VERY REASON, (THERE IS) THE SIMILE, LIKE THE SUN AND WATER AND SO ON." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Brahman, though all-pervading, is indeed faultless, possessing as He does two-fold characteristics. "For that very reason," texts like: "Likewise,⁴ verily, the one soul abides within many, like the sun within water-receptacles" (Yāj. Sm. 3.144⁵) and so on, ¹ Ś.B. 3 2.17, p 728. ² Bh. B 3.2.18, p. 167. ³ G B. 3.2.17. ⁴ Correct quotation "tathā" and not "yathā". ⁵ P. 283. R. ŚK

[sū. 3. 2. 18 536 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] take the help of "the simile of the sun and water and so on" for establishing Brahman's faultlessness Vedānta-kaustubha Brahman, though abiding in many places, is not subject to even an odour of imperfections arising out of those places. "For that very reason", in Scripture the following "simile" is employed: Just as the sun and the rest, though reflected on water and the like, are not touched by their imperfections, so the Supreme Brahman too, though abiding in the sentient and the non-sentient, is not touched by their respective imperfections. The texts to that effect are as follows: "But just as the one ether becomes divided in the pots and the rest, so verily, the one soul abides within many, like the sun within water-receptacles" (Yāj Sm. 3.144), "For the soul of beings, which is one only, is installed in each separate being, and is seen as one-fold and many-fold, like the moon reflected on water" (Brahmab. 6 12 ¹). COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara The same simile of the sun and water is interpreted differently by them, viz. Just as the same sun appears to be many when reflected on many sheets of water, so the one Brahman appears to be many through being connected with Upādhis or limiting adjuncts.² How- ever, Śaṃkara and Bhāskara understand the term 'Upādhi' in two different senses, as already noted. Baladeva He begins a new adhikarana here (one sūtra), concerned with showing that the worshipper (i.e. the individual soul) is different from the object worshipped (viz. the Lord). Hence the sūtra: "And for that very reason, (i.e. because the individual soul is different from Brahman), the simile, like the sun and water and so on, (is appro- priate)". That is, in Scripture we meet with the similes of the sun reflected on water and so on, and such similes simply show that just

¹ P. 338. ² Ś.B. 3.2.18, pp. 328-329; Bh. B. 3.2.19, p 167.

[sū. 3. 2. 19. ADH 5 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 537 as the sun (or the bimba) is different from its image (or the prati- bimba), so the Lord is different from the individual soul ¹ PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 19) SŪTRA 19 "BUT ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-APPREHENSION LIKE WATER, THERE IS NO BEING SO." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha It is doubted. Water is apprehended to be remote from the sun, but not so the place (viz. the individual soul) from the whole (viz. the Lord).² Hence the example cited is not to the point. Vedānta-kaustubha It is doubted that the example cited does not illustrate the point. The word "but" is indicative of the doubt. It may be objected "There is no being so", i.e Brahman is not like the reflected sun. Why? "On account of the non-apprehension like water," i.e. water is apprehended to be remote from the sun, and the sun and the rest, though reflected on it, are yet not touched by its imperfections as they are remote from it; but all the sentient and the non-sentient are not apprehended, as in the case of water, to be remote from Brahman. Compare the scriptural texts: "He who abiding within the earth" (Bṛh. 3.7.3), "He who abiding within water" (Bṛh. 3.7.4), "He who abiding in the soul" (Śat. Br. 14.6.7.30 ³), "In whom all the worlds are situated" (Kaṭha. 5.8, 6.1) and so on; and also the Smṛti passages: '"The Lord dwells, O Arjuna, in the heart- region of all'" (Gītā 18.61), '"In me all this is woven"' (Gītā 7.7) and so on. Hence there is no parallelism between the Supreme Person, the topic of discussion, and the reflected sun and the rest. 1 G B. 3.2.18, pp. 65-66, Chap. 3. 2 The C.S.S. ed. (p. 54) reads "sthāninah". 3 P. 1074, line 8

538 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [Sū. 3. 2. 20. ADH. 5 ] CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 20-21) SŪTRA 20 "(BRAHMAN'S) PARTICIPATION IN THE INCREASE AND DECREASE ON ACCOUNT OF BEING INCLUDED WITHIN (IS DENIED), ON ACCOUNT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO (I.E. THE EXAMPLE AND THE EXEMPLIFIED) (IT IS) SO." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha With regard to it, we reply: "The participation" of the Lord of places (i.e. Brahman) "in the increase and decrease" of the places (i.e. the individual souls and matter),—He being their Inner Con- troller,—is what is denied by the example. "On account of the agreement between the two," it is "so", i.e. only the intended portion is to be understood. Vedānta-kaustubha With regard to it, the author replies: The word 'no' is to be supplied from the preceding aphorism. In spite of His "being included within" the places, there is no "parti- cipation in the increase and decrease",—due to those places,—on the part of Brahman, the Highest, who is the lord of places, in accord- ance with the scriptural texts: "He who abiding within the earth" (Bṛh. 3.7.3), "He who abiding within the soul" (Śat. Br. 6.7.30). This is what is denied by the example of the sun and the rest. "On account of the agreement between the two (this is) so", i.e. on account of the agreement between the illustration and the illustrated, only the relevant portion is to be understood. Thus, just as the ether, though actually entered within pots, jars and so on, does not parti- cipate in the faults of increase and decrease,—although the ether is in every pot and is distinguished conventionally as: 'There is no water in this pot', 'There is sugar in another', yet it remains one only,—and just as the sun, reflected on different receptacles of water, does not participate in the faults of their increase and decrease, on the contrary manifests a multitude of objects under water,—so the Supreme Brahman, who is one only, abides as manifold in the sentient and non-sentient objects as their Inner Controller, but is not touched by their respective faults, is not divided by their re- spective differences and does not participate in their increase and

[sū. 3. 2. 20. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 539 decrease. Thus, “on account of the agreement between the two, (this is) so”, i.e. only the relevant points of similarity are to be accepted, otherwise there can be no appropriateness of these two. The resultant meaning is that there can be no relation of example and the exemplified between two objects when the example proves the exem- plified to possess contrary qualities. Or (the word “ubhaya-sāmānyāt” may be explained as): On account of the appropriateness of the two examples of the sun and so on, (i.e. the sun and water, and the ether and pot). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara As before, they interpret the example in a different way Hence the sūtra: “(There is a common point between the example and the exemplified, viz. their) participation in increase and decrease, owing to being included within, on account of (such an) agreement between the two, (it is) thus: (i.e. the comparison holds good)”. That is, just as the reflected image of the sun, being inside the sheet of water, participates in all the qualities of water, viz. increases and decreases when water does so and so on, but the real sun does not do so, so Brahman, when within, i.e connected with the limiting adjuncts, such as the body and so on, participates in their growth and the like, but real Brahman never does so ¹ Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha They take this sūtra and the next one as constituting one sūtra.² Interpretation same. Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. “(The above simile of the sun and water holds good, though not in its primary sense, yet in its secondary sense of) participating in increase (i.e. greatness) and decrease (i.e. smallness), (i.e. just as the sun participates in increase, i.e. is a large substance untouched by the limitations of water and so on, while the images of the sun participate in decrease, i.e. are limited by the conditions and variations of water, so the Lord participates in great- ness, i.e. is great and independent, while the individual soul participates 1 Ś.B. 3.2.20, pp. 729-730; Bh. B 3.2 31, pp 167-168. 2 Śrī. B. 3.2.20, p. 234, Part 2; ŚK. B. 3 2.20, p. 250, Part 9. 5

540 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3 2. 21, ADH. 5 ] in smallness, i.e is small and dependent,—this is what is meant to be illustrated by the simile), on account of being included within, (i.e. because the purport of Scripture is fulfilled by this mode of explana- tion,—everything is contained in it), on account of the agreement between the two (this is) so, (i.e the comparison holds good)”.¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (end) SŪTRA 21 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF OBSERVATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And because in ordinary experience, (comparisons like): ‘A lion- like boy’² are found. Vedānta-kaustubha And because in ordinary life, expressions like ‘A lion-like boy’ and so on are found, this is “so”, i.e. the attribute which is common to the example and the exemplified is to be understood as the relevant portion here. Hence it is established that Brahman is possessed of a two-fold characteristic. Here ends the section entitled “Possessed of two-fold charac- teristics” (5). COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz. “And because it is seen (i.e. declared by Scripture that Brahman enters within the body)”.³ ¹ G.B. 3.2.20, pp. 69-70, Chap. 3. ² The whole point is that when one thing is compared to another, that does not imply that the two must be similar in all respects, but only that they are so in some intended points. E.g. when a boy is compared to a lion that evidently does not mean that he has four feet, thirst for blood, etc. like the lion, but simply that he is as brave as the lion. Hence only this point, viz. braveness is to be taken into account here. Similar is the case with Brahman and the sun. ³ Ś.B. 3.2.21, p. 730; Bh. B. 3.2.22, p. 168. 5B

[sū. 3. 2 22. adh. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 541 Adhikaraṇa 6: The section entitled "The so- muchness resulting from what has been pre- viously declared". (Sūtras 22-30) SŪTRA 22 "FOR (THE TEXT) DENIES THE SO-MUCHNESS RESULTING FROM WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DECLARED, AND AFTER THAT SPEAKS (OF BRAHMAN AS LIMITLESS) ONCE MORE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On the doubt, viz whether the text: "Not so, not so" (Bṛh. 2 3 6 ¹) denies the corporeal and the incorporeal forms, mentioned previously in the passage "There are, verily, two forms of Brahman, the corporeal and incorporeal" (Bṛh. 2.3.1 ²), or denies simply Brah- man's so-muchness resulting from His connection with the previously mentioned forms---the suggestion being that it denies the forms of Brahman—we reply : It "denies" only "the so-muchness resulting from what has been previously mentioned". "After that," "once more" ³ the concluding portion of the text says: "For there is nothing higher than this— hence (it is called) 'not so' " (Bṛh. 2 3.6 ⁴) Vedānta-kaustubha It has been stated above that Brahman is possessed of a two-fold characteristic. Now the world is real, the world which consists of the sentient and the non-sentient, which is not known through any other means of knowledge, which is knowable from Scripture alone as a form of Brahman on account of having Brahman for its soul, and which is not deniable by such texts like: 'This is not a form of Brahman.' Now, it may be thought that Brahman, who possesses the world as His form and is endowed with infinite, inconceivable, auspicious 1 Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. 2 Op. cit. This text occurs in Maitrī 6.3 as well. 3 The word "bhūyaḥ" may mean both 'once more' and 'something more'. It is not clear in which sense precisely Nimbārka understands it. Śrīnivāsa gives both the meanings, see V.K. below. 4 Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

[sū. 3. 2. 22. 542 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.] qualities and powers, becomes limited owing to His connection with the limited world. The author here denies this. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, having begun thus: "There are, verily, two forms of Brahman, the corporeal and the incorporeal" (Bṛh 2 3.1), and having exhibited the particular forms of saffron-colour and the rest thus: "The form of this person, verily, is like the saffron- colour" (Bṛh. 2 3.6), the text goes on to record: "Hence, now, there is the teaching: 'Not so, not so'" (Bṛh 2.3.6) Among these, the corporeal, 1 e. the three elements fire, water and food, the incorporeal, i.e. the two elements air and ether ¹; as well as the particular forms of the saffron-colour and the rest ² have been mentioned before. Here the doubt is whether the text. "Not so, not so" (Bṛh. 2 3 6) denies the above-mentioned group of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms of Brahman, or denies Brahman's so-muchness, resulting from His posses- sion of the above-mentioned group of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms. Here on the suggestion: It denies the group of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms,—we reply: The text. "Not so, not so" "denies" Brahman's so-muchness, resulting from His connection with those corporeal and incorporeal forms which have been mentioned previously. The word "for" shows that no things, sentient and non- sentient, are capable of being denied—things which, on account of having Brahman for their soul, are His forms, as established by hundreds of scriptural passages, such as: "There are, verily, two forms of Brahman, the corporeal and the incorporeal" (Bṛh. 2.3.1), "Everything has that for its soul" (Chānd. 6.8.7; 6 9.4, etc.), "All this, verily, is Brahman" (Chānd. 3.14.1), "By proving the enjoyer, the object enjoyed and the Mover, all has been said. This is the three- fold Brahman" (Śvet. 1.12) and so on. The phrase: "And after that speaks once more" shows that Brahman is not limited by so-muchness. That is, "after that" or after denying the so-muchness of Brahman, "once more", i.e. again, the concluding portion of the text "speaks" of Brahman as not limited by so-muchness. Or else (an alternative explanation): the concluding portion of the text speaks of something more than the previously mentioned corporeal and incorporeal forms thus: "For there is nothing higher than it, hence (it is called) 'not so'. "Now (its) name is 'the real of the real'. ¹ Vide Bṛh 2 3.2-3. ² Vide Bṛh 2.3.6

[SŪ 3. 2. 22. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 543 The vital-breaths, verily, are real. It is their real" (Brh. 2.3.6). Its meaning is as follows: It is not to be said that the real nature of Brahman is not other 'than it', i.e. than what has been mentioned above. Brahman is higher than it, unlimited by so-muchness, without an equal or a superior. There is also a 'name' for Brahman, the highest of all. The same text states it thus: 'the real of the real'. Anticipating the enquiry: The real of which reals? the text says: 'The vital-breaths, verily, are real; it is their real'. 'The vital breaths' are the individual souls having the vital- breaths, and they do not, like the ether and the rest, undergo any change of nature at the time of creation, hence they are 'real'. Just as the Vedas, though eternal, arise from Brahman, in accordance with the maxim of a person who was asleep but has arisen now,¹ He being the cause of all,—so the individual souls, too, being under the influence of karmas, come to have births, etc., i. e. undergo changes in the form of contraction or expansion of their knowledge. But the Supreme Brahman is not subject to any such changes. For this reason, and also because He is the whole, He is the real of them too,— this is the sense. For this very reason, Scripture says: "The eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious" (Katha. 5.13; Śvet. 6.13). COMPARISON Śaṁkara Interpretation diametrically opposed. The question is, what exactly is denied by the text "Not so, not so". Does it deny the two forms of Brahman merely, or also Brahman Himself possessing those forms? It may be suggested: As none among these is specially men- tioned as the object of negation here, so both these are negated. The term 'not so' is repeated twice, which also seems to imply that there are two objects of negation, the universe and Brahman. Or, Brahman alone is negatived here, since it being beyond the eyes and the mind, may very well be non-existent. The answer to this view is as follows: The two-fold negation of the forms of Brahman and Brahman Himself is not possible. Negation implies something positive and existent on the basis of which the thing is set at naught, e.g. the snake is denied to be in the rope and so ¹ Vide V K. 1.3.28.