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

[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.

[sū. 3. 3. 38. ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 661 and so on, are the modifications of the parā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti of the Lord. Hence they are real, constituting the essential nature of the Lord, and not illusory.¹ Adhikarana 17: The section entitled "Desire". (Sūtras 38–40) SŪTRA 38 "(THE ATTRIBUTES OF HAVING TRUE) DESIRE AND SO ON (ARE TO BE INSERTED) ELSEWHERE (I.E. IN THE BṚHADĀRAṆYAKA) AND THERE (I.E. IN THE CHĀNDOGYA), ON ACCOUNT OF ABODE AND SO ON." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the Chāndogya, in the text beginning: "Now, that which is within this city of Brahman is a small lotus-chamber. Small is the ether within that. What is within that should be searched out" (Chānd. 8.1.1 ²) and continuing: "This soul is free from sins" (Chānd. 8.1.5 ³), it is declared that the Highest Self, possessed of the attributes of having true "desire and so on" is the object to be worshipped. And in the Vājasaneyaka, in the text: "He, verily, is the great, unborn self, who is this one consisting of knowledge among the vital-breaths, who lies in the ether within the heart, the controller of all, the Lord of all" (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ⁴), it is declared that the Highest Self, possessed of the attributes of being the controller and so on, is the object to be worshipped. Here the vidyās are identical. Hence the attributes of having true desires and the rest are to be included in the Vājasa- neyaka, and those of being the controller and so on in the Chāndogya. Why? On account of the non-difference of abode and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, (the author) points out that when owing to the non- difference of forms, the vidyās, mentioned in even different treatises, are not different, how much more it is the case that the vidyās, demonstrated by two sections of the same treatise, are not different owing to the non-difference of forms. ¹ G.B. 3.3.39, pp. 177-178, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. ³ Ś. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

[Sū. 3. 3. 38. 662 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 17.] Having designated the Highest Self by the term 'ether' in the passage: "Now, that which is within this city of Brahman is a small lotus-chamber, small is the ether within that. What is within that should be searched for" (Chānd 8.1 1), the Chandogas go on to men- tion His special characteristics by means of eight attributes, thus: "This soul is free from sins, without old age, without death, without grief, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves" ((Chānd. 8 1.5). Having stated: "He, verily, is the great, unborn self, who is this one consisting of knowledge among the vital-breaths, who lies in the ether within the heart" (Bṛh. 4.4 22), the Vājasaneyins too go on to mention His special characteristics by means of the attributes of being a controller and so on, thus: "The controller of all, the ruler of all" (Bṛh. 4.4.22). Here the doubt is, viz. whether the vidyās of the Chandogas and the Vājasaneyins are different, or whether they are identical. On the suggestion, viz In the one case, the object to be meditated on is the Highest Self, denoted by the term 'ether' and possessed of the attributes of freedom from sins and so on; while in the other case, the object to be meditated on is one who abides within a special kind of ether and is possessed of the attributes of being a controller and so on. This being so, owing to the difference of forms, there results difference of the objects to be known, and hence the vidyās differ,— We reply: The vidyās are identical, owing to the non-difference of forms. So says (the author): "Desire and the rest". "Desire and the rest," i.e. the group of attributes like having true desires and so on, mentioned in the Chāndogya text. "Free from sins" (Chānd. 8.1.5) and so on, is to be inserted "elsewhere", i.e. in the Vājasaneyaka. "And here," i.e. and in the Chāndogya, the group of attributes like being the controller and so on, mentioned in the Vājasaneyaka text, is to be inserted. This being so, the form is not different; that being so, there is identity of the objects to be meditated on and hence the vidyās are identical. (The author) states the reasons for this mutual insertion of attri- butes: "On account of abode and so on", i.e. on account of the non- difference, in both the cases, of the abode, viz. the heart; ¹ of the ¹ Vide Chānd. 8.1.1; Bṛh. 4 4.22. See the quotations above.

[sū. 3. 3. 38. ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 663 designation of Brahman, the object to be meditated on, as a bridge; ¹ and of the connection with the fruit, viz. the attainment of Brahman, mentioned in the passages "Having attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd 8 4 4), "He becomes the fearless Brahman" (Chānd 4.4.25) COMPARISON Śaṃkara This is sūtra 39 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikarana by itself. He begins by explaining the sūtra exactly like Nimbārka, viz. that there is identity of the vidyās here and hence the attributes are to be mutually combined. But in conclusion he adds that there is, however, a difference between the two passages, viz. that the Chāndogya text refers to the qualified Brahman, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka text to the highest Brahman.² Śrīkaṇṭha He reads: "Kāmādayas tatra tatra". Interpretation same, only while Nimbārka speaks of only two Upanisads, he speaks of three, viz. Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Māhā-nārāyaṇa (Mahānār. 10.7), and points out that all these three passages refer to the same vidyā.³ He takes it as forming an adhikarana by itself. Baladeva This is sūtra 40 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikarana here (two sūtras) concerned with Śrī, the eternal consort of the Lord. According to him, the words 'sā eva' are to be supplied here from the preceding sūtra. Hence the sūtra: "She (viz. the parā-śakti of the Lord) alone (is Śrī), (who creates all) objects of desire and so on else- where (i.e. in the material world) and here (i.e. in the city of the Lord or Saṃvyoma), (for the Lord) since (she is) all-pervading ("āya"),

¹ Vide Chānd. 8.4.1; Bṛh. 4.4.22. ² Ś.B. 3.3.38, p. 820, "Ayaṃ tu atra vidyate viśeṣaḥ, saguṇā hi Brahma- vidyā Chāndogye Upadiśyate, . . . Vājasaneyake tu nirguṇam eva paraṃ Brah- mopadiśyamānaṃ dṛśyate". ³ ŚK. 3.3.38, p. 350, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 39. 664 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 17.] spreading out (“tana”) (bliss and release for the devotees) and so on”.¹ SŪTRA 39 “ON ACCOUNT OF CARE, THERE IS NON-OMISSION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is no negation of the attributes of having true desires and so on, recorded “carefully”, since the negation: “There is no plurality here” (Bṛh. 4.4.19; Kaṭha 4 11 ²) refers to the things not having Brahman for their essence. Vedānta-kaustubha It may be objected: The statement, made above, that the group of attributes like ‘being the controller’ and so on, mentioned in the Vājasaneyaka, is to be inserted in the Chāndogya, is not justifiable. In accordance with the text under discussion, viz. “It is to be perceived by the mind alone. There is no plurality here, He gets death after death who perceives here apparent plurality. It is to be looked upon as a unity alone,—this unknowable being” (Bṛh. 4.4.19-20), as well as in accordance with the subsequent text: “This soul is not this, not this” (Bṛh. 4.4.22), we arrive at the conclusion that the Highest is free from distinctions. Hence it is known that like grossness, atomicity and so on, the group of attributes like ‘being the controller’ and so on, is something to be negated. Hence, it should be known that in the Chāndogya too, the group of attributes like having true desires and so on, is something to be negated. This being so, such an absence of attributes is to be included in all the meditations subserving final release.—To this (the author) says: There is “non-omission”, i.e. non-denial, of the attributes of the Highest Brahman, like ‘having true desires’ and so on and ‘being the controller’ and so on, which are incapable of being denied and are taught “carefully” as something new in the texts: “What is within that should be searched for” (Chānd. 8.1.1), “This soul is free from sins, without old age, without death, without grief, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves” ¹ G.B. 3.3.40, pp. 182–184, Chap. 3. ² R.

[sū. 3. 3. 39. ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 665 (Chānd. 8.1.5), “Those who go, having found here the soul and the true desires, come to have free movement in all the worlds” (Chānd. 8 1.6), “The controller of all, the ruler of all” (Bṛh. 4.4 22; 5.6.1), “He is the Lord of all, he is the ruler of all beings, he is the protector of all beings” (Bṛh. 4.4 22), “He is the separating dam for keeping these worlds apart” (Bṛh. 4.4.22) and so on. On the contrary, they are to be inserted, there being no authority for their denial. The scriptural text: “There is no plurality here” (Bṛh. 4.4.19; Kaṭha 4.11) states, on the other hand, that in Brahman, who is the cause of the world, who is different and non-different from the sentient and the non-sentient and who has the stated marks, there is no ‘plurality’, i.e. there are no objects which, not having their existence and activity dependent on Him are dependent on one another only Since everything has Brahman for its essence, ‘he who perceives here apparent plurality’, not having Brahman for his essence, ‘gets death after death’. He is to be ‘looked upon as a unity alone’, since all things have Brahman for their essence, and since there is nothing which does not have Brahman for its essence. This is what the text designates, but it does not prove that the real attributes of Brahman are to be denied. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 40 in Śaṁkara’s commentary. They begin a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. whether the Prāṇāgni-hotra or the offering of the first food to the vital-breaths, enjoined in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 5.19.1), is to be omitted when eating itself is omitted or not. This sūtra states the prima facie view, viz. that there is no omission of the offering to the vital-breath even when there is the omission of eating, but it has to be performed by means of water in place of food, since the Jābāla version of the same vidyā (viz. Vaiśvānara-vidyā) shows great respect for this ceremony of Prāṇāgni-hotra. Śrīkaṇṭha He takes it to be an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets it in a sectarian way. The question is whether the form of the Lord as having a blue neck (Nīla-kaṇṭha), having Umā by His side and having attributes like true desires and so on is something to be negated

666 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 3. 40. ADH. 17.] or not. The prima facie view is that having parts like a blue neck and so on involves increase and decrease and hence it is not possible on the part of Brahman, the immutable. Therefore, the attributes of having a blue neck, having Umā by the side and so on, are not His real attributes, but are simply imagined for the sake of meditation and are, as such, subject to negation sometime or other. The answer is: "There is no negation (of the attributes having a blue neck, three eyes, Umā by the side and so on), since (they are designated in Scripture) with (great) care". That is, the Lord (viz. Śiva) is to be meditated on always as having a blue neck and so on and as accompanied by Umā,—which are His real attributes—for such a meditation alone leads to release.¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 41 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic of Śrī, viz. her identity with the parā-śakti of the Lord. The problem is that if Śrī be identical with the parā-śakti of the Lord, then she must be identical with the Lord Himself, since the parā-śakti of the Lord is identical with Him. In that case, however, she cannot be devoted to the Lord, since none can be devoted to one's own self. The answer is: "On account of (her great) regard (for the Lord), there is non-cessation (of her devotion for Him)". That is, Śrī, though one with the Lord, cannot but love and be devoted to Him who is her very existence, just as the branch cannot but love the tree, or the ray the moon.² SŪTRA 40 "WHEN ONE HAS APPROACHED (THE LORD, HE COMES TO HAVE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT), FOR THIS REASON, ON ACCOUNT OF STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha When one has attained Brahman by means of meditating on Him who has the stated marks, one comes to have freedom of movement in 1 ŚK. B. 3.3.39, pp. 354-355, Parts 10 and 11. 2 G.B. 3.3.41, p. 185, Chap. 3. "Satyapya bhede vicitra-guṇaratnākarat- vena sva-mūlatvena ca śriyaḥ parasmin ādarāt tad bhakter lopaḥ. Na khalu- vṛkṣam anādriyamāṇā śākhāsti, na candram tatprabhā."

[SŪ. 3 3 40. ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 667 all the worlds. If it be objected: How can one have freedom of movement everywhere unless one first aspires to attain those particular worlds and then practises the means leading to them?—We reply: "For this reason", i.e. on account of this very reason of attaining (the Lord), in accordance with the statement: "Having attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd. 8.3.4¹), "He becomes a self-ruler" (Chānd. 7.2 2²), "He comes to have freedom of movement in all the worlds" (Chānd. 7.25.2³). Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. In the texts: "Now, those who depart having the self here and these true desires come to have freedom of movement in all the worlds. If he comes to desire the world of fathers" (Chānd. 8 2.1) and so on, it is declared that even by those who desire salvation, the worlds common to those who desire enjoyment are attained. This being so, what difference is there between devotion to works and devotion to knowledge?—(the author) says: "When one has approached," i.e. when the knower, freed from all connection with matter in its causal and effected states, has come to attain the nature of Brahman, he attains freedom of movement in all the worlds. Why? "For this reason" alone, i e. on account of the very reason of attaining the nature of Brahman. The sense is this: Just as a man, desirous of universal sovereignty, having given up the objects of enjoyment, common to all men, as well as the means thereto, attains universal sovereignty through the means thereto, and afterwards for just that reason, comes to have freedom of movement among the objects of enjoyment that are common to all men, as well among those that are difficult to be attained by them,—though not desired by him,—so the knower, having given up all enjoyments, here or hereafter, as well as the means thereto, attains the nature of the Lord through the hearing, thinking, meditation, worship and so on of Him; and for that very reason of attaining His nature, comes to have freedom of movement everywhere. Whence is this known? To this (the author) replies. "From statement to that effect", i.e. from the statement, every- where, of a knower's having freedom of movement, such as

¹ R, ŚK. ² R. ³ Op. cit. 13

[SŪ. 3. 3. 40. 668 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 17.] "Having attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd. 8.3.4, 8.12.3), "He is the excellent person. He roams about there laughing, playing, enjoying with women, or with carriages, or with relatives, not remembering the appendage of this body" (Chānd. 8.12.3), "He becomes a self-ruler. He comes to have freedom of movement in all the worlds" (Chānd. 7.25.2), "As to the perfection of means to the four ends of men,—without it a man, whose refuge is Nārāyaṇa, attains them", and so on. Thus, there is a great difference between devotion to works and devotion to knowledge. Hence it is established that through the mutual insertion of the attributes of having true desires and so on and of being the controller and the rest, the Brahma-vidyās of the Chāndogas and of the Vājasaneyins are the very same. Here ends the section entitled "Desire" (17). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 41 in Śaṁkara's commentary. Here they answer the prima facie view stated in the previous sūtra, thus: "When (eating is actually) taking place, (then alone an offering to the vital- breaths is to be made) from that (i.e. from the first food), on account of statement to the effect". ¹ Śrīkaṇṭha He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpreta- tion different. The question is whether the freed attain the very nature of Brahman, as possessed of infinite auspicious attributes, and so on, or something else. The prima facie view is that Brahman is declared to be free from distinctions or nirviśeṣa. Hence the freed souls attain this distinctionless form of Brahman. The answer is: "When one has approached (Brahman, one attains the nature of Brahman as possessed of all auspicious attributes), for that reason (i.e. because the freed soul attains its own form), (and) because of texts to that effect (i.e. that the freed become similar to the Lord)". ² ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.41, pp. 822–824; Bh. B. 3.3.40 (written as 3 3 41), pp. 191-192. ² ŚK. B. 3.3.40, pp. 356-357, Parts 10 and 11. 13B

[SŪ. 3. 3. 41. ADH. 18.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 669 Baladeva This is sūtra 42 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic of the identity of Śrī with the parā-śakti of the Lord and hence with the Lord Himself. The contention is that if Śrī be identical with the Lord, then no erotic sentiment is possible between them, since any such sentiment is possible only if there be a difference between the lover and the beloved. The answer is : “(Śrī being the highest of the females and the Lord being the best of the males, an erotic sentiment naturally arises between them) when (they) have approached (each other), hence (such a sentiment is possible on the part of the Lord), on account of statement to that effect”. ¹ Adhikaraṇa 18: The section entitled “Non- restriction with regard to the specifying of that”. (Sūtra 41²) SŪTRA 41 “(THERE IS) NON-RESTRICTION WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIFYING OF THAT, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT BEING SEEN, FOR THE FRUIT (VIZ.) NON-OBSTRUCTION IS ‘DIFFERENT’.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is “non-restriction” (i.e. no fixed rule) that the meditations that are founded on the subordinate parts of sacrificial acts and are mentioned in texts like: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1³) and so on (are to be included) in those acts. Why? Because in the scriptural text: “Both perform with it, he who knows this thus and he who does not know thus” (Chānd. 1.1.10⁴), such a non-restriction is found. As we learn from Scripture that even a non-worshipper is a performer of sacrificial works through the praṇava, a subsidiary part of sacrificial works, so it is ascertained that there is no restriction with regard to the act of meditation. And hence that the fruit of meditation is “different” from the fruit of work is known from the passage: “What only one does with ¹ G.B. 3.3.42, p. 186, Chap. 3. ² This topic is resumed in Br. Sū. 3.3.59–64. ³ Ś, R, Bh. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.