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

[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.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 22. 544 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.] on. Hence absolute and universal negation is impossible and meaning- less. Therefore, Brahman cannot be negatived As such the text “Not so, not so” denies only the two previously mentioned corporeal and incorporeal forms of Brahman and thereby depicts the real nature of Brahman, viz. His absolute freedom from all differences. If it be said: Why should Scripture first designate these forms and then deny them?—the answer is that Scripture never actually proves that Brahman possesses these forms, but simply mentions them as the views of the ignorant for the purpose of showing their hollowness later on. Moreover, the repetition of the words ‘not so’ simply refers to the two forms separately. Thus according to Śaṃkara, there are two alter- native explanations of the sūtra (1) Having first designated Brahman as “Not so, not so”, the text goes on to say once more: “There is nothing higher than it, hence (it is called) ‘Not so’ ”. (2) (Or) there is no better designation of Brahman's real nature than the text: “Not so”; and the text declares something more, viz the name of Brahman.¹ Rāmānuja Interpretation same, but he does not begin a new adhikarana here, but continues the same adhikaraṇa up to sūtra 25. Bhāskara He also does not begin a new adhikarana here, but continues the same topic of the meditation on Brahman in His aspect of non- difference, as pure existence and consciousness. According to Him in the text: “Not so, not so”, the first ‘not so’ denies the corporeal and the incorporeal forms of Brahman, i.e. His form as the elements; while the second ‘not so’ denies His Vāsanā-maya form, i.e His form as the individual soul. Thus this text designates the pure, non- differenced form of Brahman, but by no means proves the non-existence of the world. Hence the sūtra: (“The text) denies the so-muchness of the topic of discussion (viz. Brahman) after that speaks (of Brah- man) once more (as the Highest Being)”.² 1 Ś.B. 3 2.22, pp. 737 ff. 2 Bh B. 3.2.23, p. 169

[sū. 3. 2. 23-24. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 545 SŪTRA 23 “THAT (VIZ BRAHMAN IS) UNMANIFEST, FOR SCRIPTURE STATES.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The scriptural text: “He is not apprehended by the eye, nor by speech” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8 ¹) and so on, states that Brahman is “Un- manifest”. Vedānta-kaustubha The author points out that Brahman, immanent in the corporeal and the rest, yet transcendent, is not apprehended by the ordinary sense-organs. “That,” i.e. Brahman, is “Unmanifest”, “for” Scripture “states” : “His form is not present to vision, no one whosoever sees Him with the eye” (Kaṭha. 6.9 ; Śvet. 4.20), “He is not apprehended by the eye, nor by speech” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8) and so on. COMPARISON Śaṁkara Like Nimbārka, he also holds that Brahman is not perceivable by the ordinary sense-organs; although unlike Nimbārka he holds here, as before, that Brahman has no corporeal and incorporeal forms.² Baladeva He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. —————— SŪTRA 24 “AND (BRAHMAN IS REVEALED) IN PERFECT MEDITATION, ON ACCOUNT OF PERCEPTION (I E. SCRIPTURE) AND INFERENCE (I.E. (SMṚTI).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha But Brahman is revealed in loving devotion, i.e. in meditation, in accordance with the following scriptural and Smṛti texts, viz. “He, with his nature purified through the clarification of the

¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B ² Ś.B. 3.2.23, p. 741.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 24 546 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.] knowledge of Brahman, perceives, meditating, him who is without parts" (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8 ¹), '"But through exclusive devotion, I may be known thus, O Arjuna, and perceived in truth, and entered, O conqueror of enemies!"' (Gītā 11.54 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha Apprehending the objection, viz. This view, surely, is inconsistent with texts like: '"O, the self is to be seen"' (Bṛh. 2.4.5; 4.5.6) and so on, the author points out that if an earnest effort be made by virtuous men who follow Scripture and are desirous of a direct vision of Him, then He becomes manifest to them. The word "and" implies possibility. Brahman becomes manifest "in perfect meditation", i. e. in loving devotion or meditation. And this is known "from perception and inference", i.e. from Scripture and Smṛti. Compare scriptural texts like: "He is attainable only by him whom he chooses To him he reveals his own person" (Kaṭha. 2.23; Muṇḍ. 3.2.3), "He, with his nature purified through the clarification of the knowledge of Brahman, perceives, meditating, him who is without parts" (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8); and Smṛti texts like: '"But through exclusive devotion, I may be known thus, O Arjuna, and perceived in truth, and entered, O conqueror of enemies!"' (Gītā 11.54). "He whom the Yogins ³, — sleepless, with subdued breath, with contented minds, with restrained sense-organs, — see as light, obeisance to Him, whose self is Yoga" (Mahā. 12.1642 ⁴), "The Yogins see him, the lord, the eternal" and so on. COMPARISON Śaṁkara Reading slightly different, viz. he adds a "ca" after "api".⁵ ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ² R, B. ³ A Yuñjāna is a Brahmin, one who by religious exercise called Yoga endeavours to obtain union with the Lord. ⁴ P. 423, lines 18-19, vol. 3, Asiatic Society ed. This edition and the Vaṅgavāsī ed. (p. 1420, col. 2, line 5) read "samttvasthāḥ" and "sattvasthāḥ" respectively in place of "saṁtuṣṭāḥ". ⁵ Ś.B. 3.2.24, p. 741.

[sū. 3. 2. 25. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 547 Baladeva He takes this sūtra too as forming an adhikarana by itself Interpretation same. SŪTRA 25 "AND AS IN THE CASE OF LIGHT AND THE REST, (THERE IS) NON- DIFFERENCE (I.E THE CASE OF BRAHMAN IS SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF LIGHT AND THE REST), AND (BRAHMAN'S) MANIFESTATION (TAKES PLACE) THROUGH REPETITION WITH REGARD TO ACT (I.E. THE MEANS)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Just as there is manifestation of the sun, fire and the like through the repetition of the means resorted to by those who long for them, so there is "non-difference" in the case of Brahman too, i.e. there is "manifestation" of Brahman.¹ The sense is that the direct vision of Brahman results from the incessant repetition of the sādhanas or the means consisting in perfect meditation. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. To say that Brahman becomes manifest in perfect meditation only does not stand to reason ; for why should not everyone equally see Brahman who is the soul of all and all- pervading ?—the author replies : The light of the sun is within the reach of all, yet the sun mani- fests itself "through the repetition with regard to act", i.e. through the repeated mutterings of sacred formulæ and so on by Kunti, Yudhiṣṭhira and the like; the fire is within the reach of all, yet it manifests itself "through the repetition with regard to act", i.e. through the repeated churning and the like by the twice-born; and gold is available only "through the repetition with regard to act", i.e. through repeated searching and so on. The case of Brahman too is "non- different" or similar. That is, Brahman, though available by all, manifests Himself to those alone who are desirous of salvation and meditate on Him incessantly. 1 The last portion of the sentence: "Brahma-prakāśo bhavati" is omitted by C.S.S. ed., p. 55.

[SŪ 3. 2 25. 548 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.] COMPARISON Śaṃkara Interpretation absolutely different, viz. “And as in the case of light and the rest, there is non-difference (between Brahman and the individual soul), and the light (viz. Brahman) (appears manifold) in work (i e. through its connection with the limiting adjuncts), on account of repetition (i.e. the repeated declaration of Scripture)”. That is, in the preceding sūtra it has been pointed out that Brahman manifests itself in profound meditation This seems to suggest that there is a difference between Brahman, the object worshipped, and the individual soul, the worshipper. This sūtra controverts the sug- gestion by pointing out that just as the rays of the sun appear crooked, straight and so on in accordance with the shape and position of the fingers and the like through which they are passing, but the real sun remains what it is, so Brahman appears dual through the limiting adjunct of meditation and so on, but is really one and without a second. That is, for the purpose of meditation, a distinction is made between Brahman and the individual soul, but there is no real difference between them.¹ Rāmānuja This is sūtra 24 in his commentary. Interpretation different. Here he continues the problem, viz. What is exactly denied by the text: “Not so, not so” (Bṛh. 2.3.6). The sūtra means, according to him: “Like light (i.e. knowledge) and so on, there is non-difference, (i.e. just as knowledge, bliss and the like constitute the very nature of Brahman, so do His corporeal and incorporeal forms), and (just as) light (i.e knowledge) (and bliss and the like are known to be constituting the very nature of Brahman) from the repetition with regard to act, (i.e. from the repeated practice of devout meditation), (so are His corporeal and incorporeal forms)”. That is, Vāmadeva and others, who obtained a direct vision of the Lord, perceived Him as knowledge and bliss and so on, just as they perceived Him also as possessed of the corporeal and incorporeal forms. And, just as Vāmadeva and others perceived Him as knowledge and bliss and so on through the repeated practice of meditation, so they perceived Him ¹ Ś.B. 3.2.25, p. 742.

[sū. 3. 2. 25. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 549 as possessed of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms through the repeated practice of meditation. Hence the above text "Not so, not so" denies only the so-muchness of Brahman, but not His corporeal and incorporeal forms.¹ Bhāskara This is sūtra 26 in his commentary. He interprets the first portion of the sūtra like Śaṁkara, the last portion like Nimbārka: although he gives two alternative interpretations of the word "kar- maṇi". "(If it be said that the Highest Self being unmanifest, beyond the senses and obtainable through meditation only, must be different from the individual soul,—we reply.) Like light and the rest, there is non-difference also (between Brahman and the individual soul), and the manifestation (of Brahman, which brings about this non- difference, arises) from the repetition (i.e. the repetition of meditation) with regard to act (i e. with regard to the object to be worshipped, viz. Brahman) (Or an alternative explanation ) from the repetition with regard to act (i.e. with regard to meditation)" ² Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 24 in his commentary. Interpretation different. "And as in the case of light (viz. knowledge) and so on (there is) non-difference, and the manifestation (of Brahman takes place) through the repetition with regard to act, (i.e those who attain a direct vision of the Lord, come to have lordship and the rest like Him, just as they come to have knowledge, bliss and the rest like Him,— there is no difference between their attaining knowledge, bliss and the rest like the Lord and attaining lordship and so on like Him)." ³ Baladeva He breaks this sūtra into two different sūtras thus: "Prakāśādi- vac ca vaiśeṣyāt" (sūtra 25), "Prakāśaś ca karmaṇy abhyāsāt" (sūtra 26). Interpretation of the first portion entirely different. Sūtra 25.—Here the word "na" is to be supplied, according to Him, from sūtra 19. Hence the sutra: "And (the Lord is) not like light (i.e. fire) and the rest, for (there are) no (such) distinctions (in

¹ Śrī B. 3.2.24, p 238, Part 2. ² Bh. B. 3 2.26 (written as 3.2.25), pp. 169-170. ³ Śk. B. 3.2.24, pp. 257-258, Part 9.

550 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 26. ADH. 6.] Him)”. That is, fire has two states, subtle and gross, and it is unmanifest in its subtle state, but becomes manifest in its gross state. Such is not the case with the Lord, i.e. it is not that the Lord is un- manifest in His subtle state, but becomes manifest in His gross state,— for, in Him there is no such distinction of subtle and gross. Hence the manifestation of the Lord does not depend on any such states, but on the love and devotion of the devotee.¹ Sūtra 26.—“And (if it be objected that it is by no means a universal rule that whoever loves God sees Him, we reply:) the mani- festation (of the Lord to the devotee is brought about) through the repetition with regard to act (i e through the repeated practice of meditation).” That is, mere love is of no avail, but the constant repetition of the acts of meditation, etc. is necessary.² SŪTRA 26 “HENCE (THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL ATTAINS SIMILARITY) WITH THE INFINITE, FOR THUS (IS) THE INDICATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha When the individual soul directly intuits Brahman, it becomes similar to Him, in accordance with the text “When the seer sees the golden-coloured creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahmā, then the wise men, having discarded merit and demerit attains the highest equality” (Muṇḍ. 3.1 3 ³). Vedānta-kaustubha Incidentally, the author is indicating the fruit of the direct vision of Brahman. “Hence,” i.e. through the manifestation or the direct vision of Brahman, the individual soul becomes similar to the Infinite, i.e. to Brahman, the Highest Person, “for thus (is) the indication”, i e. because there is a text intimating this, viz “When the seer sees the golden-coloured creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of ¹ G B. 3.2.25, p. 80, Chap. 3. ² Op. cit, 3.2.26, p. 81, Chap. 3. 2 Not quoted by others.

[sū. 3. 2. 26 ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 551 Brahmā, then the wise man, having discarded merit and demerit, attains the highest equality” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.1 3). COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 27 in Bhāskara’s commentary Interpretation different, viz “Hence (i.e because the distinction between Brahman and the individual soul is due to nescience, while the absolute oneness of Brahman is the ultimate truth), (the individual soul can get rid of nescience and become one) with the Infinite (i.e. Brahman), for this (is) the indication”.¹ Rāmānuja This is sūtra 25 in his commentary. Interpretation different, viz. “Hence (i.e on account of the above reasons), (it is proved that Brahman is qualified) by infinite (auspicious qualities), for thus (i.e. this being so), the mark (i.e. the two-fold characteristics of Brahman) (is established)”.² According to Rāmānuja, the section about the two-fold characteristics of Brahman ends here, while according to Nimbārka, as we have seen, it ends with sūtra 21. Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 25 in his commentary. Interpretation different,— very similar to that of Rāmānuja: “Hence (i.e. because the devotees of Brahman, who have attained similarity with Him, are endowed with knowledge, bliss, supreme lordship and the like), (it is proved that Brahman has connection) with infinite (auspicious qualities) for thus (i.e this being so), the mark (i.e. two-fold characteristics of Brahman) (is established) ”.³ Baladeva This is sūtra 27 in his commentary. Interpretation different, viz. “Hence (the direct vision of the Lord is possible) through (the grace of) the Infinite (viz. Brahman) for thus (is) the indication”.

¹ Ś.B. 3.2.26, p. 743; Bh. B. 3.2.27 (written as 3.2.26), p. 170. ² Śrī B. 3.2.25, p. 238, Part 2. ³ Śk. B. 3.2.25, p. 258, Part 9.

552 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ 3. 2. 27. ADH. 6.] That is, the Lord, though invisible, yet makes Himself visible to His devotees through His mysterious power or grace ¹ SŪTRA 27 "BUT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF BOTH, LIKE THE CASE OF THE SERPENT AND THE COIL." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The view that the corporeal and the incorporeal are never negated by Scripture is being confirmed here The universe, consisting of the corporeal and the incorporeal, abides in its own cause, viz. Brahman, in a relation of difference-non-difference, on account of the designa- tion of both difference and non-difference, "like the case of the serpent and the coil" Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out that the entire expanse of the universe, consisting of the corporeal and the incorporeal, mentioned in Scrip- ture as the effect and form of Brahman, cannot be the object of the denial: "Not so, not so" (Bṛh. 2.3.6); and also that Brahman, being transcendent, is faultless. With a view to confirming this, the reverend author of the aphorisms states his own conclusion, expound- ing the meaning of all Scriptures, viz. that the universe, the effect, stands in a relation of difference-non-difference to Brahman, the cause. In spite of their difference from Brahman, the whole groups of effects, like the corporeal and the incorporeal and so on, are non- different from Him. Why? "On account of the designation of both," i.e. on account of the designation of difference and non-difference. Compare the following texts designating difference: "From whom, verily, these beings arise" (Tait. 3.1), "He who abiding within the earth" (Bṛh. 3.7.3) and so on; and the text designating non-difference: "All this, verily, is Brahman" (Chānd. 3.14.1) and so on. Here the author states a parallel instance: "Like the serpent and the coil". In all cases, the parallel instances are to be understood 1 G.B 3.2.27, p. 82, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 27. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 553 as referring to the relevant portion only ¹ The serpent, having the form of a rope and the material constituting the coil, is the cause , and analogous to it is Brahman, endowed with all powers, and the one non-different efficient and material cause of the world. The coil, having the form of a bracelet, is the effect; and analogous to it is the Universe, consisting of the corporeal and the incorporeal, the effect. Among these, the coil is dependent on another, something to be pervaded and an effect; while in contrast to it, the serpent is self-dependent, the pervader and the cause Hence there is a difference between the two. And, since the coil has no existence and activity apart from the serpent, it is non-different as well from the serpent. In the same way, the Universe, the effect of Brahman who is possessed of the powers of the sentient and the non-sentient, is both different and non-different from Brahman, the cause. There is a multi- tude of scriptural texts in conformity with the aphorisms, viz "Two birds, close friends" (Ṛg. V. 1.164 20 ²; Mund. 31.1, Śvet. 4.6), "Think- ing the Mover and the soul to be separate" (Śvet. 1.6), "And all this, verily, is Brahman" (Chānd. 3.14.1), "All this has that for its soul" (Chānd. 6.8.6, etc.), "Brahman alone is all this" (Nṛ. Ut. 7), "The soul alone is all this" (Chānd. 7.26.1) and so on. The sense is that there can be no negation of the corporeal and the incorporeal, because they have Brahman for their soul. COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 28 in Bhāskara's commentary. They take this sūtra as stating a prima facie view regarding the relation between Brahman and the individual soul, i.e. how to reconcile the texts designating difference and those designating non-difference. Hence the sūtra: "But on account of the designation of both (i.e. because in Scripture we meet with two kinds of texts, one designating difference, the other non-difference), (the individual soul is both different and non-different from Brahman), like the serpent and the coil". That is, the snake is one as a whole, yet is different, as having ¹ As shown under V.K. 3.2.20-21. ² P. 146, line 1.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 28. 554 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 6.] different postures, viz. coil, the erect hood and so on. Similarly Brahman is one, but is different as soul, matter and so on.¹ Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 26 in their commentaries. Rāmānuja begins a new adhikarana here. Interpretation different. They too take this sūtra as stating a prima facie view regarding the relation between the non-sentient (i.e. the acit) and Brahman, and interpret it to mean that the non-sentient is but a particular state (saṁsthāna-viśeṣa) of Brahman, just as the coil is of the serpent.² Baladeva This is sūtra 28 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here, concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the identity between the Lord and His attributes (four sūtras). Hence the sūtra: "But on account of the designation of both, (the Lord is both bliss and blissful and so on), like the serpent and the coil". That is, the Lord is essentially intelligence and bliss, yet possesses these as His attributes, just as the serpent is nothing but the coil, yet possesses it as its attribute.³ SŪTRA 28 "OR LIKE LIGHT AND (ITS) SUBSTRATUM, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING LIGHT" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is such a relation (of difference-non-difference) between the individual soul and the Highest Person as well,—on account of the designation of both,—as between light and its substratum. Hence, it is not to be supposed that there is an absolute non-difference (between the two) on the ground of the aphorism: "Hence with the infinite" (Br. Sū. 3.2.26),—this is the sense. ¹ Ś.B. 3.2.27, p. 743; Bh. B. 3.2.28 (written as 3.2.27), p. 170. ² Śrī. B. 3.2.26, pp 245-246, Part 2; Śk. B. 3.2.26, pp. 258-259, Part 9. ³ G B. 3 2.28, p. 85, Chap. 3.

{sū. 3. 2. 28. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 555 Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. There may be a relation of difference and non-difference between the non-sentient and Brahman, but there is no such relation between Him and the individual soul, since in accordance with the aphorism: “Hence with the infinite, for thus .(is) the indication” (Br. Sū 3 2.26), the individual soul attains equality with the Infinite, and as such it appears that there is an absolute non-difference between the two,—the author replies. The phrase: ‘on account of the designation of both’ is to be supplied The word “or” is meant for disposing of the objection. There is no absolute non-difference between the two, on account of the designation of a natural difference between the two. On account of the designation of a natural difference in the passages “When the seer sees the golden-coloured creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahmā” (Muṇḍ. 3 1 3; Maitrī 6.18), “But then he meditating perceives him who is without parts” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8), “The knower of Brahman attains the Highest” (Tait. 2.1), “He obtains the Person, higher than the high, celestial” (Muṇḍ. 3.2.8), “Non-knowing, a beast (as it were), and not the Lord”, “He who is omniscient, all- knowing” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9; 2.2 7), “Those who abiding the midst of ignorance” (Katha 2 5; Muṇḍ. 1.2.8), “This soul is free from sins, having true desires, having true resolves” (Chānd 8 1.5; 8.7 1, 3; Maitrī 7 7), “He who abiding in the soul” (Śat. Br. 14.6.7.30 ¹) and so on; and on account of the scriptural statement of a natural non-difference in the passages: “That thou art” (Chānd 6.8 6, etc.), “I am Brahman” (Bṛh. 1.4 10), “This soul is Brahman” (Bṛh. 2.5.19) and so on, there is a relation of natural difference-non-difference between the soul and Brahman. The author states a parallel instance. “Like light and (its) sub- stratum”. “Light” is the ray of the sun and the like. There is a natural relation of difference and non-difference between light and its substratum, since the formor has no separate existence apart from the latter. In answer to the objection: Why is there such an insistence on the non-difference between those two absolutely different objects? the author states here another reason: “On account of being light”. There is non-difference between light and its substratum also because both are equally light, and like that, there is a natural relation of ¹ P. 1074, lıne 18. 6

556 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 2. 28. ADH. 6.] difference and non-difference between the individual soul, the part and the whole (viz. Brahman),—this is the sense. Under the aphorism: "A part, on account of the designation of variety, and otherwise also" (Br. Sū. 2.3.42) the relation between the individual soul and the Highest soul has been discussed for the sake of removing the conflict between the two classes of texts, but here it is stated once more for refuting the view of the logicians and the rest who hold that there is an absolute non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman—this is the distinction. COMPARISON. Śaṁkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 29 in Bhāskara's commentary They take this sūtra too as stating another prima facie view regarding the relation between Brahman and the individual soul. Hence the sūtra means: just as the sun and its rays are identical, both being light, yet they are taken to be different, so also Brahman and the individual soul ¹ Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 27 in their commentaries. They too take this sūtra as laying down another prima facie view regarding the relation between the non-sentient and Brahman This prima facie view, Rāmānuja points out, criticizes the preceding prima facie view by pointing out that if the non-sentient world be a state of Brahman, as the coil is of the snake, then it will become identical with Him, seeing that the coil is after all nothing but the snake itself. Hence the correct view is that the world is related to Brahman just as the ray is to the sun, i.e. is His form (rūpa) and is different from Him.² Baladeva This is sūtra 29 in his commentary. He continues the topic of the identity between Brahman and His attributes, illustrating it by a second example. Hence the sūtra means: "Just as the sun is essentially light, yet a substratum of light, so Brahman is essentially knowledge, yet the substratum of knowledge (i.e. a knower)".³ ¹ Ś.B. 3 2.28, pp. 743-744; Bh B. 3.2 29 (written as 3.2.28), p. 170. ² Śrī. B. 3.2.27, p. 246, Part 2; Śk B 3.2 27, p. 259, Part 9. ³ G.B. 3.2 29, p. 86, Chap. 3. 6B