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

[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.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 34. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 565 CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 34 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE SPECIALITY OF PLACE, AS IN THE CASE OF LIGHT AND SO ON." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The thinking of what is unlimited as limited fits in "on account of the speciality of place, as in the case of light and so on". Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. The unlimited can never become limited even for promoting meditation?—the author replies: It is possible for Brahman, though Himself unlimited, to become limited "on account of the speciality of place", "as in the case of light and so on", i.e. just as light, the ether and the like, though unlimited, yet appear to be limited through their connection with windows, pots and so on. COMPARISON Śaṁkara Interpretation different, viz "(There is nothing besides Brahman) on account of the difference of place (i e. limiting adjunct), as in the case of light and so on" That is, Brahman is one, though it appears to be many through its connection with limiting adjuncts, just as the light of the sun appears to have many shapes through its connection with fingers, etc. Hence plurality is not ultimately real.¹ Bhāskara This sūtra is not found in his commentary. Baladeva This is sūtra 35 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikarana here, concerned with showing that the Lord has a variety of manifes- tations (two sūtras). Hence the sūtra: "(The manifestations of the Lord are different), on account of the difference of place (i.e. the ¹ Ś B. 3.2.34, p. 748.

566 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 35. ADH. 7.] difference of the devotees to whom He manifests Himself), as in the case of light and so on”. That is, the Lord, though one, manifests Himself in different forms to His devotees, in accordance with the difference of their devotions,—those who worship Him; as the Master see Him as the Majestic, and those who worship Him as the Beloved, see Him as the Sweet,—just as the same light appears different when it falls on different parts of a temple and so on ¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 35 “ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATENESS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And “on account of the appropriateness” of the designation of a relation, since He Himself leads to His own attainment, there is no other reality, higher than Brahman Vedānta-kaustubha It has been alleged that on account of the designation of a rela- tion between the object to be attained and that which causes to attain, there is something ‘higher than this’. To this the author replies : The Supreme Person causes the attainment of His own self, the object to be attained, in accordance with the scriptural text: “This soul is not attainable by instruction, nor by intellect, nor by much learning. He is attainable only by one whom he chooses. To him the soul reveals his own person” (Katha 2.23; Muṇḍ. 3.2.3); and in accordance with the statement of the Highest Person: ‘“Fix your mind in me, be my devotee, sacrifice to me, bow down to me. You shall come to me alone. I promise you truth; you are dear to me” ’ (Gītā 18.65). “On account of the appropriateness,” thus, of the designation of the object to be attained and that which causes to attain,—to say that there is something ‘higher than this’ does not stand to reason. ¹ G.B. 3.2.35, p. 94, Chap 3

[sū. 3. 2. 36. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 567 COMPARISON All others add a “ca” at the end, thus “Upapatteś ca” Śaṃkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz. In answer to the objection (stated under sūtra 31), viz. that there is something other than Brahman, since during deep sleep the individual soul is said to enter into Brahman —which implies a difference between the two,—it is pointed out here that such a relation between the individual soul and Brahman is appropriate, since it does not imply that the individual soul is related to Brahman as a man to a city, (according to Bhāskara, as a rope to a pot), i.e. externally, but that the two are really identical. Hence it is that the individual soul is said to enter into itself during deep sleep.¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 36 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic of the different manifestations of the Lord in accordance with the different kinds of devotion thus: “And on account of the appropriate- ness (of the Chānd. text 3.14 1)”. That is, the text: “As you meditate, so you become” is explicable only on this view, viz. that the devotees realize the Lord differently in accordance with their different modes of worshipping Him ² CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 36 “LIKEWISE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DENIAL OF ANOTHER.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “Likewise,” it is not to be said that on account of the designation of difference, viz. “That which is beyond that” (Śvet. 3.10 ³), there is a reality other than Brahman,—“on account of the denial”, viz. “Than whom there is nothing else whatsoever higher” (Śvet. 3.9 ; Mahānār. 10.4 ⁴). ¹ Ś.B. 3.2.35, p. 748, Bh. B. 3 2.35, p. 171. ² G.B. 3.2 36, p. 95, Chap. 3. ³ R, B. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, B.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 36. 568 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7 ] Vedānta-kaustubha It has been said that on account of the designation of difference, viz. “By him, by the Person, all this is filled. That which is beyond that is without form, without disease” (Śvet. 3 9-3.10), there is something ‘higher than this’. To this the author replies. On account of the stated reasons Brahman is without an equal and a superior; “likewise on account of the denial of another”, i.e. of an equal or a superior, as well, it is established that He has no equal or a superior; In accordance with the scriptural text: “Than whom there is nothing else whatsoever higher” (Śvet 3 9; Mahānār. 10.4) and so on,—the word ‘higher’ meaning something better, the word ‘something else’ meaning something equal ¹,—as well as in accordance with the Smṛti passage: ‘“There is nothing else higher than me, O Dhanañjaya !”’ (Gītā 7 7) and so on, the section is concerned with the supremacy of the Person, the topic of discussion ; and hence by the text. “That which is beyond that” (Śvet. 3.10) another reality is not established. On the contrary, in accordance with the text: “Than whom there is nothing else whatsoever higher, than whom there is nothing else smaller, nothing else greater,—the One stands motionless like a tree in heaven, by him, the Person, all this is filled” (Śvet. 3.9; Mahānār. 10 4), Brahman, the Highest Person, is without an equal and a superior, and all-pervading; and for this reason, Brahman, called ‘Person’, is said to be beyond that. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara They understand this sūtra to mean that in Scripture there is the denial of anything else besides Brahman, and hence Brahman is the sole reality.² Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 35 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with the question whether there is anything equal to the Lord, the doubt that there may be something superior to Him being disposed of in the previous adhikaraṇa. Hence the sūtra “Likewise (i.e. just as

¹ The text is: “Yasmāt paraṁ nāparam asti kiñcit”. ² Ś.B. 3.2.36, pp 748-749, Bh. B. 3.2.36, p. 172.

[sū. 3. 2. 37. ADH. 7 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 569 there is nothing superior to the Lord, so there is nothing equal to Him), on account of the denial of another (creator), (i e because Scripture denies that there is any other creator besides Him)".¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 37 in his commentary. He takes it as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with proving that the Lord is the highest, for unless the Lord be the Highest, there can be no love and devotion for Him. ―――― CORRECT CONCLUSION (end) SŪTRA 37 "HEREBY THE ALL-PERVASIVENESS (OF THE LORD IS CONFIRMED), ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL TEXTS ABOUT EXPANSION AND SO ON." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "Hereby" the "all-pervasiveness" of the Supreme Brahman is confirmed, "on account of the scriptural texts" like: "By Him, the Person, all this is filled" (Śvet. 3.9 ²) and so on Vedānta-kaustubha "Hereby," i e. by the section designating the Lord as having no equal or a superior, the "all-pervasiveness" of Brahman is con- firmed. If there were an equal or a superior to the Lord, He would not have been all-pervasive. The author states the authority for this: "On account of the scriptural texts about expansion and so on" —the word 'expansion' here means all-pervasiveness—such as: "By Him, the Person, all this is filled" (Śvet. 3.9; Mahānār. 10.4), "And whatever is seen or heard in this world,—Nārāyaṇa abides by pervading all that, inside and outside" (Mahānār. 11.6 ³), "Eternal, omnipresent, all-pervasive, excessively subtle" (Muṇḍ. 1.1.6) and so on. The words "and so on" imply the scriptural texts that denote Brahman as the cause of all, as the soul of all, thereby confirming ―――― ¹ Śk B. 3.2 35, p. 266, Part 9. ² R. ³ A slightly different version is found in Tait. Ār. 10.11.1

[sū. 3. 2 37. 570 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] His all-pervasiveness, viz. “He is the cause, the cause of the lord of causes” ¹ (Śvet 6 9), “All this has that for its soul” (Chānd. 6.8.6, etc.). “All this, verily, is Brahman” (Chānd 3 14 1), “Brahman alone is all this” (Nṛ. Ut. 7), “The soul alone is all this” (Chānd. 7.26.1) and so on. Hence it is established that Brahman, the cause of the world, is without an equal and a superior. Here ends the section entitled “The Highest” (7). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara While Nimbārka takes the section to be establishing that there is nothing higher than Brahman, they take it as establishing that there is nothing besides Brahman. Hence the sūtra “Hereby (i.e. by proving that there is nothing besides Brahman) (His) all-pervasiveness (is established) . . . . ” ² Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 36 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic, viz. that there is nothing equal to Brahman. Interpretation different, viz. “Hereby (i.e. through Nārāyaṇa) (Śiva’s) all-pervasiveness (is known), on account of scriptural texts about expansion (i e. supreme all-pervasiveness) and so on”. That is, Scripture declares that the Lord Śiva pervades the entire universe through Nārāyaṇa, the material cause who is but a part of Himself. Hence it is known that the Lord Himself is all-pervasive.³ Baladeva This is sūtra 38 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with establishing the all-pervasive- ness of the Lord, though he interprets it differently thus: “(If it be objected that the Lord is not all-pervasive, but of a middle size, i.e. of the size of the body or form in which He appears before His devotees, ¹ Correct quotation : “Karaṇādhipādhipa”=lord of the lord of sense-organs (or the individual soul). ² Ś.B. 3.2.37, p. 749; Bh. B. 3.2.37, p 172. ³ Śk. B. 3 2 36, pp. 269-270. Vide also the commentary on Śk. B. on the same pages.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 38-39. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 571 —then we reply) "By Him (i e. by the Lord) all-pervasiveness (is possible), on account of the scriptural texts about expansion and so on" That is, even the middle form of the Lord, i.e. the form in which He appears before His devotees, is all-pervasive, for Scripture declares so.¹ Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "The Fruit". (Sūtras 38–41) SŪTRA 38 "THE FRUIT (ARISES) FROM THIS, ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATE- NESS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "From this," i.e. from Brahman alone, arises "the fruit" accruing to different individuals, in accordance with the particular duties to which they are entitled,—as He alone can be such a giver of fruits. Vedānta-kaustubha Thus the attributes of Brahman, viz. being free from sins, being an abode of eternal and infinite, auspicious attributes, having no equal or superior and the like, have been stated. Now the author states a particular quality of Brahman, the Highest, viz. being the giver of fruits. "The fruit," consisting in enjoyment and salvation, accruing to particular individuals in accordance with the particular duties to which they are entitled, arise "from this", i.e. from the Highest alone. Why? "On account of appropriateness," i.e. because the Highest Person alone, omniscient, omnipotent, the controller of all can be such a giver of fruits. SŪTRA 39 "AND BECAUSE OF BEING DECLARED IN SCRIPTURE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And because the fact that He is the giver of fruits is declared by texts like: "He, verily, is the great, unborn self, the eater of food, the ¹ G B. 3.2.38, p. 98, Chap. 3. 7

572 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 2. 40. ADH. 8.] giver of wealth" (Bṛh. 4 4.24¹), "For he alone causes bliss" (Tait. 2.7 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha And as the fact that the Highest Self is the giver of fruits is declared by texts like: "He, verily, is the great, unborn self, the eater of food, the giver of wealth" (Bṛh. 4.4 24), "For He alone causes bliss" (Tait. 2 7),—from Him alone can the fruit arise. OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 40) SŪTRA 40 "RELIGIOUS MERIT (IS THE GIVER OF FRUITS), JAIMINI (THINKS SO) FOR THOSE VERY REASONS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "Jaimini" thinks that "religious merit" is the cause of the fruit,—because, as in the case of tilling, it alone can appropriately be its cause; and because the text: "One desirous of heaven should perform sacrifices" (Tait. Saṁ 2.5.5 ³) declares it to be such a cause. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been stated above that 'On account of appropriateness' (sūtra 38), 'And on account of being declared' (sūtra 39), the fruit arises from the Highest. Now, as in the case of tilling, Karmas alone can appropriately be the cause of fruits. Further, Karmas like sacrifices and the rest, are declared to be productive of fruits by texts like. "One desirous of heaven should perform sacrifices" (Tait. Saṁ. 2.5.5) and so on. Hence, "for those very reasons," i.e. on account of the same two reasons, the teacher "Jaimini" thinks that "religious merit" alone, or Karma, is the cause of fruit through the ¹ Ś, R, Bh, B. ² R. ³ P. 208, line 27, vol. 2. Ś, R, Bh. 7B

[SŪ 3. 2 41. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 573 intermediary of the operation called ‘apūrva’ The operation called ‘apūrva’ is said to be a particular subsequent state of the sacrifice.¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 41) SŪTRA 41 “BUT (THE GIVER OF FRUITS IS) THE FORMER (VIZ. THE LORD), BĀDARĀYAṆA (THINKS SO), ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF (HIM AS) THE CAUSE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The word “but” is meant for disposing of the above view. The teacher of the Veda thinks that the giver of fruits is the Highest Self, mentioned before, “on account of the designation” of the Highest as the cause of it thus: “In consequence of good work, it leads to a holy world” (Praśna 3.7²), “He is attainable by one alone whom he chooses” (Kaṭha 2 23; Muṇḍ. 3.2.3³). Here ends the second quarter of the third chapter in the Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka- mīmāṁsā texts, by the reverend Nimbārka Vedānta-kaustubha The term “but” indicates the hollowness of Jaimini's view. Never in the past, present or future do Karmas like tilling and the rest bestow the fruit to the tiller independently, but the Supreme Lord alone does so Similarly, the Vedic works too (viz. sacrifices and the like), unacquainted with the nature of themselves and of others, and done by persons who are tormented by the wheel of the world and are dependent on another, are not able to bring about the fruit independently. Even texts like : “One desirous of heaven 1 According to Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, the results of sacrifices and so on are due neither to a Supreme Deity—which it does not recognize—, nor to the particular deities to whom the oblations are offered, but to an unseen potency generated by the very performance of the sacrifices and so on. This unseen potency is called ‘apūrva’. Vide Pū.Mī.Sū. 2 1.5. 2 B 3 Not quoted by others.