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

[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

[sū. 3. 2. 29. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 557 SŪTRA 29 ‘ OR AS BEFORE. ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Objections, like the consequence of entire (transformation) and the rest, have been refuted “before” ¹ Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. If the universe be a particular state of Brah- man, as the coil is of the serpent, then there results a mass of objec- tions like the consequence of entire (transformation of Brahman), the contradiction of scriptural texts and so on,—(the author) replies: The word “or” is meant for refuting the objection. There can be no objection whatsoever “as before”; i.e. the above objections have already been refuted under the aphorism. “But on account of Scripture, on account of being based on word” (Br. Sū. 2.1.25). COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 30 in the commentary of Śaṃkara. They take it as stating the correct conclusion as against the above two prima facie views regarding the relation between Brahman and the individual soul. Hence the sūtra means: The relation between the two is to be understood as before, i.e. as stated under the sūtra 3.2.25 (sūtra 3 2.26 in Bhāskara’s commentary), viz. the relation between light and its limiting adjuncts, like fingers, etc.² Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 28 in their commentaries. They too take it as stating the correct conclusion as against the above two prima facie views regarding the relation between the non-sentient and Brahman. They point out that both the above alternatives lead Brahman Himself to partake of the faults of the non-sentient world. Hence the correct view of the relation between the two is the same as that mentioned before under sūtras 2.3.42 and 2.3.45, in connection with the

¹ Vide Br. Sū 2.1.25. ² Ś.B 3.2.29, p. 744, Bh. B. 3.2 30 (written as 3.2.29), p. 170.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 30. 558 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 6.] discussion of the relation between the sentient and Brahman, i. e. an attribute-substance relation. That is, just as it has been shown that the individual soul is a part and an attribute of Brahman and as such different from Him, so exactly is matter too ¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 30 in his commentary He continues the topic of the identity between the Lord and His attributes, illustrating it by a third example, viz. Brahman is both bliss and blissful, knowledge and knower and so on, just as the one, indivisible time is said to be prior and posterior. Baladeva points out that of these three illus- trations, viz. the serpent and its coil, the sun and its rays, and time, each of succeeding one is meant for finer and subtler intellect.² —————— SŪTRA 30 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF NEGATION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And on account of the negation," viz. "He is not smeared with the misery of the world" (Kaṭha 5.1), Brahman, the topic of dis- cussion, does not possess any imperfections. Vedānta-kaustubha Moreover, although Brahman, as abiding within all, and being the cause of all, has everything as His form, yet He has no connection with imperfections, "also on account of the negation" of imperfec- tions, celebrated in Scripture thus: "Just as the sun, the eye of the whole world, is not smeared with the external faults of the eyes, so the one inner soul of all beings is not smeared with the misery of the world, being external (to it)" (Kaṭha 5.11). "Just as the one air, entered in the world, corresponds in form to every form, so the one inner soul of all beings corresponds in form to every form, and is (yet) external (to it)" (Kaṭha 5.10) and so on. Hence it is established that Brahman, having everything as His form, is

¹ Śrī. B. 3 2.28, pp. 246-247, Part 2; Śk. B. 3.2 28, p. 259, Part 9. ² Not quoted by others.

[sū 3. 2. 30. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 559 untouched by every fault, is an abode of a mass of auspicious attri- butes and is the highest of all Here ends the section entitled "The so-muchness resulting from what has been previously declared" (6) COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 31 in Bhāskara's commentary. Interpretation different, viz. "And on account of the denial (of a reality besides Brahman, non-difference is the ultimate truth) " ¹ Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 29 in their commentaries. Interpretation different, viz. "On account of the denial (of the attributes of the non-sentient ² on the part of Brahman, they stand in the relation of attribute and substance) " ³ Baladeva This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. He concludes the topic of the identity between Brahman and His attributes thus: "On account of the prohibition (by Scripture of any difference between Brahman and His attributes, they are never to be taken as different) ". ⁴ To sum up: Sūtras 27–30 are interpreted in four different ways thus:— (1) According to Nimbārka, sūtra 27 states the relation between Brahman and the non-sentient; sūtra 28 states the relation between Brahman and the sentient; and sūtras 29-30 state that Brahman's having the corporeal and incorporeal forms gives rise to no objections. (2) According to Śaṁkara and Bhāskara, sūtras 27-28 state two prima facie views regarding the relation between Brahman and the sentient; and sūtras 29-30 state the right conclusion. ¹ Ś.B. 3.2.30, p 744; Bh. B. 3.2.31 (written as 3.2.30), p. 171. ² Śrīkaṇṭha adds the sentient too. ³ Śrī. B. 3.2.29, p. 247, Part 2; Śk. B 3.2.29, pp. 259-260, Part 9. ⁴ G.B. 3.2.31, p. 88, Chap. 3.

560 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 31. ADH. 7.] (3) According to Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha, sūtras 27-28 state two prima facie views regarding the relation between Brahman and the non-sentient; and sūtras 29-30 state the right conclusion. (4) According to Baladeva, all these four sūtras show the identity between Brahman and His attributes. Adhikarana 7: The section entitled "The Highest". (Sūtras 31-37) PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 31) SŪTRA 31 "(THERE IS SOME ONE) HIGHER THAN THIS (VIZ. BRAHMAN), ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATIONS OF BRIDGE, MEASURE, CONNECTION AND DIFFERENCE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The prima facie objector says: "Than this", i.e. than Brahman, the topic of discussion, there is a reality still "higher", on account of the designation of connection, viz. "Now the soul that is a bridge" (Chānd. 8.4.1¹) and on account of the designation of difference, viz. "By him . . . . . . .² all this is filled" (Śvet. 3.9³), "That which is beyond that is without form, without disease" (Śvet. 3.10⁴). Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out above that Brahman is the cause of all, omnipotent, untouched by faults at times, an abode of a mass 1 Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. 2 The word "puruṣeṇa" omitted. 3 R. 4 R. The C.S.S. ed., p. 56 has a more detailed reading which is translated below.— On account of the designation of a bridge, viz. "Now the soul that is a bridge" (Chānd. 7.4.1); on account of the designation of measure, viz. "Brahman has four feet" (Chānd. 3.18.2), "Having sixteen parts" (Praśna 6.1); on account of the designation of connection, viz. "This is the bridge of immortality" (Muṇḍ. 2.2.5); and on account of the designation of difference, viz. "By him, by the Person, all this is filled (Śvet 3.9), "That which is beyond that is without form, without disease" (Śvet 3.10).

{SŪ. 3. 2. 31. ADH. 7 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 561 of eternal, infinite, auspicious qualities, unlimited by so-muchness and different and non-different from all. Now, it is being shown that He is not excelled by anything, and this will go to confirm the view that He is not limited by so-muchness With regard to it, the doubt being whether Brahman is surpassable or unsurpassable, the author states the prima facie view "Than this," i e. than Brahman, omnipotent, the cause of all, there is a still "higher" reality. Hence Brahman is surpassable. Why ? "On account of the designations of bridge, measure, connection and difference." Thus the Supreme Brahman is designated as a bridge: "Now that which is the soul is a bridge" (Chānd. 8.4.1). From this designation it is known that there is a reality,—analogous to a rare object in another island,—which is to be reached and which is higher than Brahman, analogous to a bridge. Moreover, from the text· "Having crossed that bridge, one who is blind becomes non-blind" (Chānd. 8 4.2) too, it is ascertained that like a bridge, Brahman is only something to be crossed; while the object to be attained is something other and higher than Brahman Further, there are designations of measure, viz. "Brahman has four feet" (Chānd. 3.18.2), "Having sixteen parts" (Praśna 6.1), i.e. the Supreme Brahman is designated as something limited. These designations clearly indicate the existence of an immeasurable object to be attained by the bridge. And from the designation of connection too, viz "This is the bridge of immortality" (Muṇḍ 2.2 25), it is known that there is someone higher than Brahman. Finally, there are designations of difference, viz. "By him, by this Person, all this is filled" (Śvet. 3.9), "That which is beyond that is without part and without disease" (Śvet. 3.10), i.e. there is another reality which is beyond Brahman, denoted by the term ‘person’. Thus, it is established that there is a reality higher than even the Highest Brahman,—this is the prima facie view. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara According to them the word "param" does not mean something higher, but something different (anya-tattvam).¹ They too take this to be stating the prima facie view.

¹ Ś.B. 3.2.31, p. 745; Bh. B. 3 2.32 (written as 3.2.31), p. 171.

562 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 32. ADH. 7.] Baladeva This is sūtra 32 in his commentary. He, too, begins a new adhikarana here, but concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. that the bliss of the Lord is the highest (three sūtras) Accordingly, he does not take this sūtra as stating a prima facie view, but simply as stating the correct conclusion Hence the sūtra: "(The bliss of Brahman is) higher than this (viz worldly bliss), on account of the designation of bridge, immeasurableness, relation and difference". That is, the bliss of Brahman is infinitely higher than the bliss of the individual soul, for the text about the bridge (Chānd. 8 4.1) shows that Brahman, the bliss, is the support of the entire world. Further, the bliss of the Lord is said to be immeasurable (Tait. 2.4) Also, the relation between the bliss of the Lord and human bliss is declared to be that between infinity and one (Brh. 4 3.22) Finally, the difference between the bliss of the Lord and human bliss is declared. All these go to prove that the bliss of the Lord is the highest ¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 32–37) SŪTRA 32 “BUT ON ACCOUNT OF RESEMBLANCE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The author states the correct conclusion. The term “but” is meant for disposing of the above view. There is nothing whatsoever higher than the Universal Lord, the cause of the world. The Lord is designated as a bridge only because He is similar to the bridge in a certain respect, i e. He keeps the worlds apart. Vedānta-kaustubha The author states the correct conclusion. The word “but” is meant for disposing of the prima facie view. It cannot be said that there is something ‘higher than this’. Why? On account of the following reasons: First, the Lord is designated ¹ G B. 3.2.32, pp 90-91, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 33. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 563 as a bridge “on account of resemblance”, i.e simply because He is similar to the bridge, well-known in ordinary life. Just as in ordinary life a bridge adjusts water¹, so the Soul too is a bridge as adjusting the boundary of the world ², in accordance with complementary passage : “For keeping these worlds apart' (Chānd. 8 4.1). In the text: “Having crossed the bridge” (Chānd. 8.4 2), the word ‘crosses’ means ‘attains’, as in the statement: ‘He crosses the Vedānta’.³ Baladeva This is sūtra 33 in his commentary. He continues the topic of the bliss of Brahman. Hence the sūtra. “(If it be objected that human bliss cannot be different from the bliss of Brahman, because the same word ‘bliss’ is applied to both, just as an object designated by the word ‘jar’ cannot be different from another object designated by the same term ‘jar’—we reply: the word ‘bliss’ is applied to human bliss) on account of generic resemblance”. That is, just as the common term ‘jar’ is applied to all jars irrespective of their individual differences, so the common term ‘bliss’ is applied to human and divine bliss, irrespective of the difference between the two ⁴ CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 33 “(THE DESIGNATION OF MEASURE IS) FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDERSTANDING, AS IN THE CASE OF FEET ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The designations of measure are for promoting meditation. It is for this reason that Brahman is designated as having feet thus: “Let one meditate on the mind as Brahman,—thus with reference to the self” (Chānd. 3.18.1 ⁵), “That Brahman has four feet. Speech is one foot” (Chānd. 3.18 2 ⁶) and so on. ¹ I.e. separates one sheet of water from another, and marks the boundaries of contiguous fields. ² I.e. separates one world from another. ³ Which means that he has attained or mastered the Vedānta. ⁴ G.B. 3.2 33, p. 91, Chap. 3 ⁵ Not quoted by others. ⁶ R, ŚK.

[sū. 3. 2. 33. 564 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] Vedānta-kaustubha The designations of measure too are "for the purpose of under- standing" or meditation. "As in the case of feet," i e. as in the case of the designation of the feet of the mind and the rest Thus, in the text: "Let one meditate on the mind as Brahman,—thus with reference to the self. That Brahman has four feet. Speech is one foot, the vital-breath is one foot, the eye is one foot, the ear is one foot" (Chānd 3.18 1-2), the mind, a symbol of Brahman, is declared to have feet. In the same manner the fire and the rest are described as the feet of the ether (Chānd. 3.18 2) for promoting meditation, but not for indicating a particular measure or size. Similarly, here too Brahman,—who is the cause of the world and who is ascertained to be unlimited from the text: "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait. 2.1)—is designated as having four feet (Chānd. 3.18 2) "for the purpose of understanding" only, but this never implies that He is something measured or limited—this is the sense. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 34 in his commentary. He concludes here the section concerned with showing that the bliss of Brahman is the highest. Hence the sūtra: "(If it be objected: If the bliss of Brahman be different from human bliss, i.e. if Brahman be different from the Universe of the sentient and the non-sentient, then how can the teaching in Chānd. 3.14 1, viz that -‘All this, verily, is Brahman’, be reasonable?—we reply: that teaching is) for the purpose of Understanding, as in the case of feet". That is, the whole world is said to be Brahman in order to bring about an easy realization of Him, just as everything is said to be His foot (Ṛg. V. 10.90.3) for the same reason.¹ ¹ G.B 3.2.34, pp. 92-93, Chap. 3.