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

[sū. 3. 3. 31. ADH. 13 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 641 vidyā 1, Vaiśvānara-vidyā 2 and the rest. Hence the doubt is as to whether the path belongs only to those who are possessed of the Upakosala-vidyā and the rest, or to all those who possess the Brahma- vidyā. With regard to it, the prima facie view is as follows: It is proper that the path should belong only to those who are possessed of the vidyās in which it is mentioned, on account of the force of the general subject-matter, and not to others,—so is the restriction. With regard to it, we reply: "No restriction", i.e. there is no restriction that the path belongs only to those who possess the vidyās in which it is mentioned, but this path is open to all those who possess Brahma-vidyā. If it be objected that in that case, there will result contradiction with the general subject-matter, we say: "non-contradiction", since the general subject-matter is set aside by text 3. Whence is this known? "From word and inference," i.e. from Scripture and Smṛti, viz. from the scriptural texts: "Those who know this thus and those who worship faith and truth in the forest, they pass over to light" (Bṛh. 6.2.15) and so on; and from the Smṛti passage: "Fire, light, the day, the bright fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of the sun,—departing through these those who know Brahman go to Brahman" (Gītā 8.24) and so on. Here having stated that those who are devoted to the five fires and who know this heaven-world and the similar designations of water, fire, air, the sun, the quarters, the moon, lightning, thunder, space, law, truth, mankind, and soul. There is a different Madhu-vidyā, or the representation of the sun as the honey extracted from all the Vedas in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 3.1–3.11). For detailed account, vide V.K. 1.3.33, footnote 1, p. 335. 1 Śāṇḍilya-vidyā or the doctrine taught by Śāṇḍilya. Vide Bṛh. 5.6; Śat. Br. 10.6.3; Chānd. 3.14. For detailed account vide V.K. 3.3.19. 2 Vaiśvānara-vidyā or the doctrine of the Universal Soul taught to six Brāhmaṇas, Prācīnaśāla and the rest, by King Aśvapati, vide Chānd. 5.11–5.18. The story begins: Six great house-holders, Prācīnaśāla and the rest assembled and pondered: '"Who is our Soul? Who is Brahman?"' Unable to decide, they approached Uddālaka Āruṇi with a view to learning about the Vaiśvānara Ātman or the Universal Soul from him. The latter directed them to King Aśvapati. Aśvapati asked each of the six, '"Whom do you reverence as the Universal Soul?"' They successively answered: the heaven, the sun, the wind, the ether, water and the earth. Thereupon Aśvapati taught them that the Uni- versal Soul is not thus separate, i.e. either the heaven, or the sun, etc., but is the Universal Being, comprehending everything. Vide V.K. 1.2.25; 3.3.55. 3 Vide Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.14.

642 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 3. 31. ADH. 13.] rest as fire pass over to light, Scripture goes on to say in the text: "And those who in forest" (Bṛh 6 2.15) that those too who meditate with faith on the true Brahman, celebrated in another scriptural text: "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait 2 1), pass over to light. In this manner, truly, the path is attained by all those who possess Brahma-vidyā, as by those who possess the Pañcāgni-vidyā. Hence it is ascertained that the general subject-matter is set aside by the texts, designating such a journey through the path of light, which are of a greater force. Similarly, by Smṛti as well the journey of all worshippers of Brahman through this path alone is established. Hence it is established that the path beginning with light, which is indeed met with in all the vidyās, is (only) re-mentioned (in the Upakosala-vidyā) and so on. Here ends the section entitled "Non-restriction" (13). COMPARISON Śaṃkara He reads "sarvāsām" (feminine gender) instead of "sarveṣām" (masculine gender), and interprets the sūtra thus: "(There is) no restriction (with regard to the going through path of light, but it is valid) for all (the saguṇa-vidyās or meditations on the qualified Brah- man), (there is) non-contradiction on account of work and inference".¹ Thus, literally he interprets the sūtra like Nimbārka, but while he speaks here of saguṇa-vidyās only, which, according to him, do not directly lead to release, Nimbārka does not do so Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha They revert the order of this sūtra and the next thus:— Nimbārka and others Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha "Aniyamaḥ . . . ." (sūtra 31). "Yāvadhikāram . . . .". (sūtra 31). "Yāvadhikāram . . . ." (sūtra 32). "Aniyamaḥ . . ." (sūtra 32) 1 Ś.B. 3.3.31, p. 805.

[sū. 3. 3. 32. ADH. 14.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 643 Interpretation same, only Rāmānuja does not take sūtra 31 (sūtra 32 according to Nimbārka) as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, but includes it under the section entitled "The Passing Away" (section 12 according to Nimbārka). He, however, takes 32 (sūtra 31 according to Nimbārka) as forming a section by itself, like Nimbārka. Śrī- kaṇṭha takes each of these two sūtras as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, like Nimbārka. Baladeva This is sūtra 32 in his commentary He too begins a new adhikaraṇa here, but concerned with an entirely different topic. He reads "avirodhāt" instead of "avirodhaḥ" Thus : "(There is) no rule (that meditation, muttering prayers, singing the name of the Lord and the rest are to be performed conjointly always as a means to salvation, since any one of them may singly lead to salvation), since there is no contradiction of all (texts), on account of word and inference".¹ Adhikaraṇa 14. The section entitled "So long as the office lasts". (Sūtra 32) SŪTRA 32 "OF THOSE WHO ARE ENTRUSTED WITH (CERTAIN) OFFICE, THERE IS ABIDING SO LONG AS THE OFFICE LASTS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Of Vasiṣṭha and the rest, on the other hand, "there is abiding so long as the office lasts", owing to the influence of the works of which their office is the result. Vedānta-kaustubha (The author) is now refuting the following objection: The argument stated above, viz. that through the power of know- ledge there result the decay of all the karmas of a knower at the time of his separation from the body, and the (consequent) attainment (by him) ¹ G.B. 3.3.32, pp. 164-165, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 32. 614 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 14.] of a distinguished place through the path beginning with light, is not justifiable, since it is found that even great sages like Vasiṣṭha and the rest, (though) possessed of knowledge, were re-born and experienced pleasures and pains. The re-birth of Vasiṣṭha from a pitcher is well-known.¹ How he experienced grief is declared by Smṛti thus: "He devoured Vasiṣṭha's hundred sons, Śakti and his younger brothers, as an infuriated lion devours a small deer. On hearing that his sons had been killed by Viśvāmitra, Vasiṣṭha bore that grief as the great mountain bears the world. He, the best of the sages, planned to destroy himself, but never did the greatest among the wise think of destroying Kauśika (i.e. Viśvāmitra). The holy sage threw himself down from the peak of the Meru. From the mountain he fell down on its stones as on a heap of cotton. When he did not die from that fall, O Pāṇḍava, His Holiness entered a blazing-fire in a great forest. Then, though well-lit, the fire did not burn him. Seeing the sea, the great sage, afflicted with grief, fastened a heavy stone around his neck and dropped into the water. (But) the great sage was placed on the land by the current of the sea-waves. Then, depressed, he, went once more towards his own hermitage" (Mahā. 1. 6737–6744²). How he experienced happiness, too, is declared by Smṛti thus: "And he was followed to his hermitage by his daughter- in-law, named Adṛśyantī. Then by chance he heard from behind the sound of the study of the Veda, complete in meaning and ornamented with the six subsidiary parts. 'Who is following me?' he asked then. 'I, Adṛśyantī,' replied his daughter-in-law, Śakti's wife, highly virtuous, endowed with austerities and leading a religious life. 'Daughter, from whom is coming the sound of the study of the Veda with its subsidiary parts? Formerly, the Veda with its subsidiary parts was heard by me from Śakti alone.' 'In my womb has been born, O sage, the offspring of your son Śakti, who repeated the Vedas here for twelve years.' Told thus by her, the sage Vasiṣṭha, the highest, highly pleased, saying: 'I have an offspring', refrained, O Pārtha, from dying" (Mahā. 1.6755b–6760³). (Reply:) "Of those who are entrusted with (certain) office", i.e. of Vasiṣṭha and the rest, who owing to certain karmas, have been

¹ Vide Ṛg.V. 7.33.13, p. 26. ² Pp. 244–245, vol. 1. ³ P. 245, lines 14–19, vol. 1.

[sū. 3. 3 33. ADH. 15 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 645 entrusted with offices like composing the Veda and so on, "there is abiding so long as the office lasts", owing to the non-cessation of the works which have already begun to bear fruits and which brought about the office. Hence, in their case too, when through retributive enjoy- ment, the works which have begun to bear fruits and which brought about the office become exhausted; and when the office (thereby) comes to an end, there result the decay of all works at the time of their separation from the final body and the (subsequent) attain- ment (by them) of the path beginning with light. Here ends the section entitled 'So long as the office lasts' (14). Adhikaraṇa 15: The section entitled "The con- ception of the Imperishable". (Sūtras 33-34) SŪTRA 33 "BUT THERE IS THE COMPREHENSION (IN ALL BRAHMA-VIDYĀS) OF THE CONCEPTIONS OF THE IMPERISHABLE, ON ACCOUNT OF GENERALITY AND ON ACCOUNT OF BEING THAT, AS IN THE CASE OF WHAT BELONGS TO THE UPASAD, THAT HAS BEEN SAID." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There should be the inclusion, under all meditations on Brahman, of the conceptions of non-grossness and the rest, connected with the Imperishable, stated in the text: "That, verily, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short" (Bṛh. 3.8.8 ¹). Why? Because everywhere the Imperishable, viz. Brahman, the chief, is the same; and because those attributes of non- grossness and the rest form essential parts of an investigation into His real nature; just as in the Jāmadagnya-ahīna ² sacrifice, in which the Upasad ³ offerings are to consist of puraḍāś ⁴, the sacred formula read ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ² A sacrifice lasting four days, called 'Jāmadagnya' because offered by Jāmadagni. Vide Tait. Saṁ. 7.1.9. See V.K. 3.3.33. ³ Name of a ceremony lasting several days and forming part of the Jyoti- ṣṭoma sacrifice. ⁴ A puraḍāś is a sacrificial cake of ground rice, usually divided into pieces and offered in one or more cups (or kapāla).

[SŪ. 3. 3. 33. 646 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15 ] in the Sāma-veda, viz.: “May the fire promote the sacrifice” (Tāṇḍ. Br. 21.10.11 ¹) and so on, is recited in the low accent of the Yajur-veda. “That has been said,” viz: “If there be opposition between the subsidiary and the primary, there is connection of the Veda with the primary, because of the subserviency of that, (i.e of the subsidiary to the primary)”. (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.9.²) Vedānta-kaustubha By the statement (made above) that the knowers abide (in this world) until the completion of their offices, it is indicated that the departure of such men also from the universe, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, is under the control of the Highest Person alone, different from the universe. Now (the author) points out that the attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest of that very Highest Person,—the cause of the origin and the rest of the world, the controller of the sentient and the non- sentient, different in nature from the whole group of non-sentient objects which are seen to be possessed of grossness and from the group of sentient beings which are declared by Scripture to be atomic, and an ocean of natural, eternal and infinite mass of attri- butes,—are to be meditated on by the knower in all the meditations on Him. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, the answer given to Gārgī by Yājñavalkya is recorded thus: ‘ “That, verily, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short, non-long, not red, not fluid, without shadow, without darkness, without air, without space, unassociated, tasteless, odourless, without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind, without light, without breadth, without

¹ P. 625, vol. 2. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² P. 280. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. The sense is that when the primary and the subsidiary belong to two different Vedas, the Vedic characteristic of the subsidiary is to be determined by the primary, because the subsidiary is subservient to the primary, i.e. because the performer takes up the performance of the subsidiary solely for the purpose of making the primary complete in all details. Vide Śab. B. on Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.9, pp. 280-281. Hence here the Sāma-veda mantras, instead of being recited in the loud accent of the Sāma-veda, are to be recited in the low accent of the Yajur-veda, since they form subordinate parts of a Yajur-vedic sacrifice, viz. Jāmadagnya-ahīna.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 33. ADH. 15.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 647 happiness ¹, without measure, without inside and without outside. It consumes nothing whatsoever ² Verily, O Gārgī, at the com- mand of this Imperishable the sun and the moon stand held apart’ ’ (Bṛh. 3.8.8-9 ³). In the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda too beginning: “Now, the higher is that whereby the Imperishable is apprehended” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.5), it is said: “That which is invisible, intangible, without family, without caste, without eye, without ear, without hands and feet” (Muṇḍ. 1 1 6 ⁴). Here the doubt is, whether the attributes, viz. non-grossness, non-atomicity, invisibility, intangibility and the rest, which belong to Brahman, denoted by the word ‘Imperishable’, which are mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the text of the followers of the Atharva- veda, and which establish the difference of Brahman from the sentient and the non-sentient,—are to be inserted in all the meditations on Brahman or not. On the suggestion, viz. that they are not to be inserted, there being no purpose for that,— (We reply.) There is a purpose. In those meditations on Brahman too, it is Brahman, different from the sentient and the non-sentient, that is the object to be attained by the attainers,—so says (the author): “But there is the comprehension of the conceptions of the Imperishable”. “The Imperishable” is Brahman. There should be the “comprehension”, i.e. inclusion, of the “conceptions” of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest also, connected with Him, in all the meditations on Brahman, in order that we may understand ¹ Correct quotation : “amukham” (=without mouth) and not “asukham”. Vide Bṛh. 3.3.8, p. 169. ² Omitted portion: “None whatsoever consumes it”. ³ Vide the dialogue between Gārgī and Yājñavalkya, Bṛh. 3.8. Gārgī put two questions to Yājñavalkya: First: “That which is above the sky, that which is beneath the earth, that which is between these two, sky and earth, that which people call the past, the present and the future,—across what is that woven, warp and woof ?” (Bṛh. 3.8.4). Answer: “That, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable”, etc. ⁴ Vide Muṇḍ. 1 1. Brahmā taught this knowledge of Brahman to his eldest son Atharva, who taught it to Aṅgir, who taught it to Bhāradvāja Satya- vāha, who taught it to Aṅgiras. Then, Śaunaka, a great householder approached Aṅgiras with the question: “Sir ! Through knowing which everything else becomes known ?” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.3). Thereupon Aṅgiras proceeded to teach him two kinds of knowledge, higher (or parā) and lower (or aparā). The lower so is the knowledge of the four Vedas with their subsidiary parts, the higher is the knowledge whereby the Imperishable is apprehended.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 33. 648 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15.] His real nature as different from the sentient and the non-sentient. That His essential attributes, like bliss and the rest, are to be so included has been stated under the aphorism: "Bliss and the rest belonging to the chief" (Br. Sū. 3.3.11). Similarly, in order that the illusory notion that His bliss is similar to other kinds of blisses may be set at naught,¹ it is proper that the attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest should be included everywhere. Why? "On account of generality and on account of being that", that is, because in all meditations on Brahman, the real nature of the object to be meditated on, which is different from the sentient and the non- sentient and is the object to be attained, remains the same; also because those attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest form essential parts of an investigation into the nature of the Chief, as they follow Him. An instance illustrating that the attributes (or the secondary matters) follow the chief (or the primary matter) is given in the phrase: "As in the case of what belongs to the Upasad". That is, just as in the Jāmadagnya-ahīna sacrifice, in which the upasad offerings are to consist of puradāś, enjoined in the text: "Jamadagni, desiring prosperity, sacrificed with the four-nightly rite . . . .² The sacrificial cakes become the upasad offerings" (Tait. Saṁ. 7.1.9 ³), the sacred formulæ read in the Sāma-veda, like "May the fire promote the sacrifice" (Tāṇḍ. Br. 7.1.9) and so on, are recited by the Adhvaryyu in the low accent of the Yajur-veda, as they follow the principal matter. "That has been said", i. e. said by Jaimini, viz. "If there be opposition between the subsidiary and the primary, because of the subserviency of that (viz. of the subsidiary to the primary)". (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.9.) ¹ That is, to know a thing is to know its peculiar attributes which distin- guish it from other objects. Now, bliss and the rest do not constitute the ex- clusive attributes of Brahman, since they are the attributes of the individual souls as well. Hence in order that the bliss and so on of Brahman may not be confused with the bliss and the rest of the individual soul, it is necessary to include in all meditations on Brahman the further attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest, which belong to Brahman exclusively, over and above the attributes of bliss and so on. ² Omitted portion: "He prospered therein and the two descendants of Jamadagni are not found to be grey-haired. He who knowing thus offers the four-nightly rite comes to have that prosperity". ³ P. 251, line 17, vol. 2.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 34. ADH. 15 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 649 COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation of "sāmānya-tad-bhāvābhyām" different, viz. "On account of the equality (i.e because all texts equally establish Brahman as such, i e. as different from the Universe) and on account of that object (viz Brahman, being the object of all texts)' 1 SŪTRA 34 "SO MUCH (I E ONLY THESE ATTRIBUTES) (ARE TO BE INCLUDED EVERYWHERE), ON ACCOUNT OF REFLECTION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Since Brahman, the best of all, is meditated on through (i.e. as possessed of) bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on, bliss and the rest are to be included everywhere Other attributes like having all works and the like, though following the Chief (viz. Brahman) are to be comprised (only) where mentioned. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. In accordance with the stated maxim 2, it follows that there is the inclusion everywhere of those attributes as well, which are stated in the scriptural text: "Having all works, having all odours, having all tastes" (Chānd. 3.14.2, 4), as they too follow the Chief—(the author) says: "So much", i.e. bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on 3, are included in all the meditations on Brahman. Why? "On account of reflec- tion"; that is, "the reflection" on Brahman, different from the 1 Ś.B. 3.3.33, p. 811; Bh. B. 3.3.33, p. 188. 2 Viz. that attributes or secondary matters follow their substratum or the primary matter. 3 Which differentiate such bliss, etc. from ordinary bliss, etc. of the indivi- dual souls.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 34. 650 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15.] sentient and the non-sentient, is preceded by the differentiation of Him from others by means of the group of attributes like bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on,—on account of such a reflection on Him, i.e. meditation on Him with thought directed toward Him. (The attributes like) having all works and so on, though following the chief, are suitable in those place alone where they are mentioned, there being no special purpose for their inclusion every- where. Hence it is established that 'there is the comprehension of the conceptions of the Imperishable' (Br Sū 3.3.33). Here ends the section entitled "The conception of the Imperishable". COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara Bhāskara reads "īṣat". They take this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the two passages in the Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad (Śvet. 4 6) and in the Kaṭha- upaniṣad (Kaṭha. 3.1) refer to the same vidyā. The answer is that they are the same "on account of so much (viz. the number two) being recorded". That is, in both the passages the Lord and the individual soul are designated as the objects to be known. As such, both constitute the same vidyā.¹ Baladeva Interpretation same, only the interpretation of the word "āmananāt" different, viz. "On account of scriptural declaration ². ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.34, pp. 814; Bh. B. 3.3.34, p. 188. ² G.B. 3.3.35.

[Sū. 3. 3. 35. ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 651 Adhikaraṇa 16: The section entitled "Being within". (Sūtras 35-37) SŪTRA 35 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (THE FORMER REPLY WHICH DESCRIBES THE SELF AS) WITHIN (SPEAKS) OF ONE'S OWN SELF AS POSSESSED OF THE GROUP OF ELEMENTS, OTHERWISE (THERE IS) UNACCOUNT- ABLENESS OF DIFFERENCE, (WE REPLY:) NO, AS IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER TEACHING." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, to the question of Uṣasta, viz. " 'He who is Brahman manifest and not visible, he who is the soul within all, explain him to me' " (Bṛh. 3.4.1 ¹), the answer given was: ' "He who breathes in with the in-breath is your soul which is within all" ' (Bṛh. 3.4.1. ²). Here, the phrase: " 'He is your soul, which is within all", teaches something "within", i.e. teaches the individual soul as within the body and the rest, it alone being the cause of breathing in and breathing out. In the very same manner, to the question of Kahola, viz. ' "He who alone is Brahman, manifest and not invisible, he who is the soul within all, explain him to me" ' (Bṛh 2.5.1.³), the answer given was: ' "He who passes beyond hunger and thirst, beyond grief, delusion, old age, death" ' (Bṛh. 3.5.1⁴). Here, on the other hand, the text teaches the Highest Self,—as such the vidyās are different, otherwise the difference of the answers is unaccountable,— (We reply:) "No", since in both the cases, the questions and the answers refer to the Primary Being alone (viz. Brahman). Just as in the Sad-vidyā,⁵ it is found that with a view to demonstrating

¹ Ś, R, Śk. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ³ R, Śk. ⁴ Ś, Bh, Śk. ⁵ Sad-vidyā or the doctrine of the Existent or the True, taught to Śveta- ketu by Āruṇi, vide Chānd. 6 (whole). The story begins. Śvetaketu became a student of sacred knowledge at the request of his father Āruṇi, and after having studied the Vedas for twelve years, returned home, conceited, thinking himself very learned. Thereupon his father asked him whether he had asked for the instruction whereby the unheard be- comes heard, the unthought thought, the unknown known. As Śvetaketu 12

[SŪ. 3. 3. 35. 652 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 16.] the particular attributes of Brahman, there is repetition of the question: ‘“Sir, you yourself tell me that”’ (Chānd. 6.1.7 ¹), ‘“Sir, inform me once more”’ (Chānd. 6.5.4 ; 6.6 5, etc.²), as well as of the answer: ‘“That which is the finest essence,—all this has that for its soul”’ (Chānd. 6.8.7, etc.³), so here too the repetition of question and answer— with a view to demonstrating that the object to be known passes beyond hunger and so on—is appropriate. Vedānta-kaustubha In the previous section, concerned with the inclusion of the attributes of non-grossness and the rest, it has been shown that the object to be known is different from other objects. With a view to confirming this, (the author), by showing now the identity of vidyās in the two texts to be mentioned hereafter, refutes the illusory notion that there are two realities as the thing to be known. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Uṣasta asked Yājñavalkya: ‘“He who is Brahman, manifest and not invisible, he who is the soul within all, explain him to me”’ (Bṛh. 3.4.1) The reply to it was: ‘“He who breathes in with the in-breath is your soul which is within all. He who breathes out with the out-breath is your soul which is within all”’ (Bṛh. 3.4.1) and so on. Likewise, in the immediately following section, to the question of Kahola, viz. ‘“He alone who is Brahman, manifest and not invisible, he who is the self within all, explain him to me”’ (Bṛh. 3.5.1), the answer was the following, beginning: ‘“He who passes beyond hunger and thirst, beyond grief, delusion, old age, death,—forsooth having known such a self, the Brāhmaṇas give up the desire for sons, desire for wealth”’, ending ‘“Aught else is wretched”’ (Bṛh. 3 5.1). Here, the doubt is as to whether the questions and answers in the two cases refer to two vidyās or to one. Here (the author) having propounded the prima facie view, rejects it thus: “If it be objected was not acquainted with that doctrine Āruṇi taught him how from the knowledge of the cause, all its effects can be known. Next he proceeded to teach him process of creation from the Sat. (Chānd. 6.2–6.7). Finally, he taught him the great doctrine of “Thou art that” in various ways (Chānd. 6.8–6.16). Each time Śvetaketu asked to be taught once more (altogether nine times) and in answer Āruṇi taught him each time by means of a new illustration. ¹ R. ² Ś, R. ³ Ś, R. 12B

[Sū. 3. 3. 35. ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 653 that (the former reply which describes the self as) within (speaks) of one’s own self possessed of the group of elements, otherwise there is unaccountableness of difference, (we reply:) no". If it be objected: The reply, viz. ' "He who breaths in with the in-breath " ' (Bṛh. 3.4.1), given to the question of Uṣasta, viz. ' " He who is the self within all ' " (Bṛh. 3.4.1), and referring to something "within", should be known to be referring to "one's own self possessed of the group of elements",¹ i e. to the individual soul, since the individual soul being the inner soul of all, viz. of the body, the sense-organs, the mind, the intellect and so on, can appropriately be the inner soul of all. Consequently, the question of Kahola and the answer to it refer to the Highest Self, the primary inner soul, since the Highest Self alone is devoid of hunger and the rest. Thus owing to the difference of form, the questions and answers refer to two vidyās. "Otherwise," i.e. if the vidyās be taken to be identical on the ground that the questions and answers refer to the Highest Self in both cases, the difference of the answers is unaccountable,— (We reply:) "no", i.e. there is no difference of vidyās, as the two sets of questions and answers refer to the same form, viz. to the Highest Self (equally). Thus, to begin with, the question of Uṣasta, viz. ' " He who is manifest and not invisible Brahman, he who is the soul within all, explain him to me " ' (Bṛh. 3 4.1) does indeed refer to the Highest Self alone. It means: Reverend Yājñavalkya, he who is Brahman, explain him to me. I am not asking about Brahman, consisting in His own power (viz. pradhāna, which may also be called Brahman) simply because of its connection with great attributes like existence and the rest.² With this idea he said: 'Explain Brahman who is not invisible and who is the soul'.³ The individual soul too is Brahman because of its connection with the attribute of knowledge.⁴ I am not ¹ I.e. possessed of the body, etc., which are products of the elements. ² I.e. the word 'Brahman', meaning 'one possessed of greatness', may figuratively denote pradhāna too owing to its connection with great attributes. That a thing, though not great by nature, may yet be designated as great because of having great attributes, is shown under V.K. 2.3.28. ³ Pradhāna is not 'not invisible', i.e. its evolutes are visible to all, while the Lord is so to the freed only. Again, pradhāna is not 'soul', which the Lord is. Hence these two epithets show that the word 'Brahman' does not mean here pradhāna, but the Lord alone. ⁴ The individual soul, though atomic by nature, is said to be great because of having great attributes. Vide V.K. 2.3.28.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 35. 654 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 16.] asking about Brahman having such a mark. With this idea, he said, 'Explain Brahman who is manifest, who is the soul within all'.¹ But such a Brahman is none but the cause of the world, having the stated marks, called the Highest Person. Thus it is known that the question is concerned with the Supreme Brahman, in accordance with the following scriptural and Smṛti texts: "The controller of matter and soul, the Lord of the properties of matter" (Śvet. 6.16), "He is your soul, the inner controller" (Bṛh. 3.7.3–23), "Entered within, the ruler of men" (Tait. Ār. 3.11.1, 2²), "He who abiding within the earth is other than the earth" (Bṛh. 3.7.3), "He who abiding within the soul is other than the soul" (Śat. Br. 14, 6.7.30³), '"I transcend the perish- able and am higher than even the imperishable. Hence I am celebrated in the world and in the Veda as the Highest Person"' (Gītā 15 18), '"He who sees me everywhere"' (Gītā 6.30), '"And I am situated in the heart of all"' (Gītā 15 15) and so on. The answer, viz. '"He who breathes in with the in-breath"' (Bṛh. 3.4.1) too refers to the Highest Person alone, since the Highest alone is the primary agent of in-breathing, in accordance with the scriptural text: "For who would live, who would breathe, if there were not this bliss in the ether" (Tait. 2.7). That the last set of question and answer refers to the Highest Self is admitted by the prima facie view as well. There is repetition of question and answer for the sake of demon- strating that the Highest Person, the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures, is beyond hunger and so on. (The author) states a parallel instance: "As in the case of another teaching". That is, just as under the same Sad-vidyā, which begins: '"You are proud. Did you ask for that teaching"' (Chānd. 6.1.2), there is repetition of the question thus: '"But you yourself, Sir, tell me that"' (Chānd. 6.1.7), '"Sir, inform me once more"' (Chānd. 6.5.4, etc.); and repetition of the answer as well, thus: '"That which is the finest essence—all this has that for its soul"' (Chānd. 6.8.7, etc.)—with a ¹ The individual is not 'manifest' Brahman, i.e. it is not directly and actually Brahman, but only figuratively, while the Lord is Brahman or great directly. Again, the individual soul is not the 'soul within all', which the Lord is. Hence these two epithets show that the word 'Brahman' here does not mean the individual soul, but the Lord alone. ² P. 181. ³ P. 1074.

[sū. 3. 3. 35. ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 655 view to demonstrating particular attributes in particular cases of one and the same object to be known,—so is the case here. COMPARISON Śaṃkara He breaks the sūtra into two separate sūtras thus: “Antarā bhūta-grāma-vat svātmanaḥ” (sūtra 35). “Anyathā bhedānupapattir iti cen nopadeśāntara-vat” (sūtra 36). Import and the conclusion reached are the same, only the literal interpretation different. Thus, while according to Nimbārka the whole portion “Antarā—bhedānupapatti” constitutes the prima facie view, according to Śaṃkara, the portion “Antarā—svātmanaḥ” does not state the prima facie view, but the view of the author, while the portion “Anyathā bhedānupapattir” alone states the prima facie view. Thus he interprets the portion: “Antarā—svātmanaḥ” (sūtra 35 in his commentary) as follows.—“(Both the texts speak) of one’s own self (viz. the Lord) (to be) within all, (hence these two selves must be identical, otherwise the inner soul must become relative) as in the case (of the body composed of the) group of elements”. That is, both the Bṛhadāraṇyaka passages speak of a self which is within all. Now if these two selves be different, we have to say that there are two selves within all. But in that case neither can be said to be the inner being absolutely, but only relatively, just as none of the five elements which constitute the body can be said to be within another—i.e. water within the earth and so on—absolutely or solely, but only relatively so. Hence to avoid this conclusion we must hold that the two selves are identical, i.e. the two passages refer to the same vidyā. Śaṃkara gives an alternative explanation of the phrase: “bhūta- grāma-vat”, viz. “as (another scriptural passage, viz. Śvet. 6.11 declares the one self to be within all) the group of (beings)”. Hence here also, there must be only one self within all. This proves the identity of the two selves and the consequent identity of vidyās.¹ Sūtra 36.—Like Nimbārka’s interpretation.

¹ Ś.B. 3.3.35, pp. 814-815.

656 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 35. ADH. 16.] Bhāskara Interpretation diametrically opposed. He interprets the first part of the sūtra like Śaṁkara, but arrives at a directly opposite conclusion. Thus, like Nimbārka, according to him also the portion "Antarā---bhedānupapatti" constitutes the prima facie view, the rest the reply. Hence the prima facie view: "(The two passages in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka refer to the same self, for on this view alone the self which is designated as) within (can be the absolute inner self and not relatively only), otherwise (the self would be) like the group of elements none of which can be said to be within another absolutely). (Hence there is) inappropriateness of difference, (i.e. the two passages refer to the same self)". Correct conclusion: "No, as in the case of the difference ('antarā') of teaching". That is, just as there are two different teachings here, so the objects taught by them too must be different. Or, an alter- native explanation: "No, as in the case of another ('antarā') teaching". That is, just as in the Chāndogya the nine repetitions of the dictum: 'Thou art that' show that in every version the object established is different, so here.¹ Baladeva He breaks this sūtra into two different sūtras exactly after Śaṁkara. Interpretation absolutely different. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (three sūtras) concerned with the topic of the identity between the Lord and His city. Thus: Sūtra 36.—"Within (the city of the Lord, viz. Saṁvyoma or the great Ether), (things appear) like (things in) an elemental city ("bhūta- grāma-vat") (i.e. in an ordinary city) (to the vision) of His own (i.e. to the devotees chosen by the Lord)." That is, in the city of the Lord, everything being a manifestation of the Lord is but the Lord Himself, but they look like material objects to His devotees.² Sūtra 37.—"If it be objected that otherwise (i.e. on the view that there is no difference between the Lord and His city), there is inappropriateness of difference (between the dweller and the resi- dence), (we reply:), no, as in the case of another teaching." That is, ¹ Bh. B. 3.3.35, p. 189. ² G.B. 3.3.36, p. 174, Chap. 3. "Yatratyaṁ vastu-jātaṁ sarvaṁ brah- mātmakam api pṛthivyādi-nirmita-vat sphurati."

[SŪ. 3. 3. 36. ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 657 just as another text (Tait. 2.1) declares the Lord to be both bliss and blissful, the attribute and the substratum of attributes, so the Lord is both the dweller and the residence, i.e. is identical with His city, yet dwells in the city. Everything is possible in His case.¹ SŪTRA 36 “(THERE MUST BE) EXCHANGE (OF IDEAS), FOR (THE TWO TEXTS) SPECIFY (THE SAME BRAHMAN), AS IN ANOTHER CASE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha An investigation into the Highest, distinguished from the individual soul as the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures, is to be made by Kahola as by Usasta. Similarly, an investigation into Him, distinguished from the individual soul as beyond hunger and so on, is to be made by Uṣasta as by Kahola. Thus, there is a mutual exchange of investigations. This being so, Brahman becomes distinguished from the individual soul. Hence the answers given by Yājñavalkya “specify”, in both cases, the same soul of all as the object to be worshipped, just as in the Sad-vidyā all the answers specify the same Brahman, the Existent. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. Let it be that in both the cases the questions and the answers refer to the Primary Inner Soul of all. Still, the vidyās do not become identical, a difference between them being possible by reason of the fact that in the prior section the Primary Inner Soul, characterized by the attribute of being the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures, is of one form as an object to be known by Uṣasta; while in the subsequent section, the Primary Inner Soul, characterized by the attribute of being beyond hunger and so on, is of another form as an object to be known by Kahola,—(the author) says: ¹ G.B. 3.3 37, p. 175, Chap. 3.

658 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 36. ADH. 16.] There is "exchange", i.e. inter-change, of the attributes of being the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures and being beyond hunger and so on. The object to be known by Uṣasta too is the one Supreme Brahman, differentiated from the sentient by the two distinguishing attributes. Similarly, the object to be known by Kahola too is the same Brahman, "for", with a view to making it known that the Highest Person, the soul of all and the object to be worshipped, is different from the individual soul, endowed with the attibutes of occupying a small place and so on,—the answers given by Yājñavalkya "specify", i.e demonstrate, Brahman as differ- ent from the individual soul by defining His attributes of being the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures and being beyond hunger and so on. "As in another case." That is, just as in another case, viz. in the case in the Sad-vidyā, by the repeated answers, establishing diverse attributes, the same Brahman is specified as the object to be known, but by reason of this difference of attributes, He Himself does not become different, in those cases, as an object to be worshipped,—so is the case here. COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 37 in Śaṃkara's commentary. They take this sūtra to be constituting an adhikarana by itself, concerned with the question whether the Aitareya and Jābāla texts: "I am he, he is I" (Ait. Ār. 2.2.4, 6), "You are I, I am you" mean only that the individual soul is the Lord; or both that the individual soul is the Lord and the Lord is the individual soul. The Prima facie view is that here the transposition is to be understood in one way only, viz. that the individual soul is the Lord,—since the lower can become the higher,—but never that the Lord too is the individual soul, since the Lord can never become the individual soul. The answer is: "(The texts designate) exchange (i.e. mutual transposition of the ideas of the individual soul and the Lord), for (they) specify (this exchange expressly), as in other cases". That is, in the texts, we must not only understand the individual soul to be the Lord, but vice versa as well, seeing that the texts expressly say not only "I am he", but also "He is I". If the transposition were meant to be understood in one way alone, they would have stopped by

[sū. 3. 3. 37. ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 659 saying "I am he". What the above passages aim at enjoining is the meditation on the unity of the soul. Hence just as other texts record the attributes of being the soul of all and so on for the purpose of meditation, so the above texts record a mutual transposition of the ideas of 'I' and 'He' for the same purpose.¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 38 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic of the identity between the Lord and His city. Hence the sūtra: "For (texts like Brh. 1.4.15) specify (that an) interchange (is possible between the Lord and His city), like other (texts, e.g. Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī, etc.)". That is, the City of Brahman is identical with Brahman Himself, hence an exchange is possible between them, and the former is equally adorable like the latter.² SŪTRA 37 "FOR HE ALONE (IS THE OBJECT OF MEDITATIONS IN ALL THE VERSIONS), THE TRUE AND THE REST (ARE INSERTED IN ALL THE VERSIONS)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "He alone" who is denoted by the term 'true', and is mentioned in the texts: "That divinity thought" (Chānd. 6.3.2 ³), "Light (merges) in the highest divinity" (Chānd. 6.8.6 ⁴), is repeated in the versions, such as: '"Just as, my dear, the bees prepare the honey"' (Chānd. 6.9.1 ⁵) and so on. The very same (attributes of being) "the true and the rest", mentioned in the first version thus: '"Everything has that for its self, that is true"' (Chānd 6.8.7 ⁶), are inserted in all other versions. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. In the Sad-vidyā too, there being a repe- tition of question and answer, how is it ascertained that the object to be meditated on is the same?—(the author) says: ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.37, pp. 816-817; Bh. B. 3.3.36 (written as 3.3.37), p. 189. ² G.B. 3.3.38, p. 176, Chap. 3. "Paramātmaiva loko lokaḥ paramātmeti." ³ R, ŚK. ⁴ R. ⁵ R. ⁶ R, ŚK.

660 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 37. ADH. 16.] “For he alone,” i.e. the Highest Divinity alone, denoted by the term ‘existent’ and referred to in the passages: “That divinity thought” (Chānd 6 3.2), “Light (merges) in the Highest Divinity” (Chānd. 6.8.6), is repeated in the versions: ‘“Just as, my dear, the bees prepare the honey”’ (Chānd. 6 9.1) and so on. The very same (attributes of being) “the true” and so on, mentioned in the first version: ‘“All this has that for its soul, that is true”’ (Chānd. 6.8.7), are inserted in all the other versions. Hence in the Sad-vidyā, the object to be worshipped is the same indeed. Thus it is established that in both the cases the questions and the answers are concerned with the same vidyā. Here ends the section entitled “Being within” (16). COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 38 in Śaṃkara’s commentary. They take this sūtra too as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the two Sad-vidyās (in Bṛh. 5.4 and Bṛh. 5.5) constitute the same vidyā or two different vidyās. The answer is that they are the same vidyā. They read “sā” (meaning vidyā) instead of “sa” (meaning the Lord). Hence the sūtra: “For that (viz. the same Sad-vidyā) alone (is recorded by the two texts), (hence the attributes of) truth and so on (are to be comprehended in one act of meditation)”.¹ Śrīkaṇṭha He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation same. Baladeva This is sūtra 39 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with proving that the attributes of the Lord are not unreal. Like Śaṃkara and Bhās- kara, he reads “sā” (meaning the parā-śakti of the Lord). Hence the sūtra: “She (viz. the parā-śakti of the Lord) alone is truth and the rest”. That is, the attributes of the Lord like truth, omniscience ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.38, pp. 817–819; Bh. B. 3.3.37 (written as 3.3.38), p. 190.