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

[SŪ. 1. 1. 19. 62 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 6 ] intermixture of qualities will result,—this is the meaning of the two aphorisms. COMPARISON Śaṁkara This is sūtra 17 in his commentary. Reading and literal inter- pretation same, quotes the same passage, but in conclusion adds his own view, viz. that really and transcendentally, there is no difference between the soul, the obtainer, and Brahman, the obtained.¹ Rāmānuja Reading and interpretation same, but refers to a different passage, viz. Taittirīya-upaniṣad, 2.5.² Śrīkaṇṭha Reading same, interpretation different, viz : ‘(If it be said that Hiraṇyagarbha is identical with the Supreme Lord, then we reply, no), on account of the designation of difference’.³ —— SŪTRA 19 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF DESIRE (THROUGH WHICH SIMPLY THE LORD IS ABLE TO REALIZE HIS PURPOSES), THERE IS NO DEPEN- DENCE (OF THE LORD) ON (WHAT IS AN OBJECT OF) INFERENCE (VIZ. PRADHĀNA).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If the individual soul be admitted to be the cause, it must depend on a material cause, viz. on pradhāna which is an (object of) “in- ference”, just as a potter has to depend on clay and the rest in creating pots and the like. But the Highest Person, non-material, consisting of bliss and omnipotent, has to depend on nothing. Why? “On account of desire”, i.e. on account of intention, as declared by the scriptural text:—‘He desired: “May I be many”’ (Tait. 2.6).⁴ 1 Ś.B 1.1.17, pp. 221-22. 2 Cf. also Chānd. 6.2.3. ‘Sa aīkṣata bahu syām’, etc. 3 ŚK. B. 1.1 19, pp. 237 ff, Part 1. 4 Ś, R, Bh, B.

[sū. 1. 1. 19. ADH. 6 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 63 Hence that which consists of bliss is different from that (viz. the individual soul). Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. Pradhāna may very well be denoted by the term ‘consisting of bliss’, as it contains the quality of sattva which is the cause of bliss, and as it corresponds to the effect ¹,—we reply — The term ‘consisting of bliss’ contains no “reference” to “in- ference”, i. e. to that which is inferred, viz. pradhāna. Why? “On account of desire”, i.e. because the text, which refers to that which consists of bliss, viz. ‘He desired: “May I be many”’ (Tait. 2.6), mentions one who desires. The sense is that desire means volition, and that is not possible on the part of the non-sentient pradhāna, but is possible on the part of the omniscient Lord of all. Although pradhāna has already been set aside by the aphorism ‘Because (the creator) sees, not, non-scriptural’ (Br. Sū. 1.1.5), it is once more set aside here with a view to confirming the ‘universality of knowing’ ² and hence there is no fault of repetition. Or else, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra:)—if the indivi- dual soul be denoted by the term ‘consisting of bliss’, the topic of the present discussion, it must be the cause of the world as well; and in that case, just as potters have to depend on clay and the rest for creating pots, etc. so the individual soul too must depend on pradhāna, which is a synonym for ‘inference’. ³ But if the omnipotent Brahman be the cause of the world, no such fault arises,—this is the sense. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 18 in their commentaries. Reading same, interpre- tation different, viz. ‘And on account of desiring, there is no reference

¹ That is, pradhāna, the non-sentient cause, is similar to the effect, the non- sentient world. Vide V.K. 1.1.5. ² Vide Br. Sū. 1.1.11, where it has been said that Brahman is universally known from all texts to be the cause of the world. ³ That is, pradhāna has been called ‘inference’ (anumāna) in the sūtra, because it is an object of inference.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 20. 64 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 6.] to (what is an object of) inference (viz pradhāna) (in the term "ānanda- maya"). That is, Scripture predicates willing on the part of the ānanda-maya, and willing is possible on the part of a conscious being alone.¹ Śrīkaṇṭha Reading same, interpretation different—viz. 'And, (even) on account of desire, (i e. in spite of the fact that Hiraṇyagarbha is said to have desired to create the world,) (his being the creator) is not dependent on reasoning (i.e. does not stand to reason,) (because it is the Lord Himself who created the world in the character of Hiraṇyagarbha)'.² SŪTRA 20 "AND (SCRIPTURE) TEACHES THE UNION WITH THAT (VIZ. BLISS) OF THIS (VIZ. THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL) IN THIS (VIZ. THE LORD)" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Scripture "teaches" the "union with that", i.e. the union with bliss, in the passage:—'Verily, he is an essence, for verily, on attaining the essence, he becomes blissful' (Tait. 2. 7). Hence it is established that He, on attaining whom the individual soul comes to be united with bliss, is different from it Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason also that which consists of bliss is neither the individual soul, nor pradhāna, but Brahman alone, since Scripture "teaches" the "union with that", i.e. the "union" or 'connection', with "that", or the Highest Self,—i.e. salvation, characterized by the attaining of His nature,³—'of this', i.e. of the individual soul, relying on Him, "in this", i.e. in the Highest Person, the Highest ¹ Ś. B. 1. 1. 18, p. 222; Bh. B. 1. 1. 18, p. 26. Note that this is adopted as an alternative explanation of the sūtra by Śrīnivāsa, but not by Nimbārka. See above. ² ŚK. B. 1. 1. 19 (pp. 240-241, Part 3) ³ Note that while according to Nimbārka, the word 'tad-yogam' means 'union with bliss', according to Śrīnivāsa, it means 'union with the Highest Self', or salvation, though ultimately these two interpretations come to the same thing.

[sū. 1. 1. 20 ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 65 Self, consisting of bliss and mantra-described. And the scriptural text to this effect is as follows:—‘For, truly, when he finds fear- lessness as a foundation in that which is invisible, incorporeal, un- defined, and unsupported, then he is gone to fearlessness. When, however, he makes the smallest distinction therein, then he comes to have fear’ (Tait. 2 7) The meaning of this is as follows. ‘When’, i e when at the time of birth which took place at a time when there was a causeless kindly glance by the Lord, as mentioned in sacred texts, thus ‘But should Madhusūdana glance at a person, when he is born, he should be known to be pure and given to the thought of salvation’. ‘“Through my grace, he attains an eternal and un- changeable place”’ (Gītā 18.56) and so on, ‘he’, i.e. a knower, devoid of any desire for enjoyments here or hereafter, restoring to the feet of the Lord alone and possessed of the characteristics as stated in Scripture thus · ‘ “I am easily attainable by one, O Pārtha, by the ever- free ascetic, who constantly remembers me, not thinking ever of another”’ (Gītā 18 14), ‘He who departs, discarding the body, uttering the one syllable “om” and remembering me, goes to a supreme goal’, ‘“Knowing me, he goes to peace”’ (Gītā 5.29), ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’ (Tait. 2.1), and so on, becomes fearless, he ‘finds’, i.e. attains, ‘a foundation’, i.e unfailing, devotion (or reliance) through His grace alone. ‘Then’, i.e im- mediately after, ‘he is gone to fearlessness’, on account of the absence of any devotion (on his part) to anyone else, which (alone) is the cause of fear In whom ? ‘In the invisible’, i.e. in that which is different from the group of the non-sentient which is visible. Again, in whom? ‘In the incorporeal’, ie in the supremely conscious Being, who is different from the group of souls or conscious beings,—that He is the supremely conscious Being is stated in the Kaṭhavallī, thus. ‘Conscious among the conscious’ (Kaṭha. 5.13; also Śvet. 6.13);—‘in the undefined’, i.e. in that which is not estab- lished as having so-muchness and the nature and qualities of which are to be known from the Vedānta alone; ‘in the unsupported’, i.e. in that which has no basis, which is possessed of infinite, incon- ceivable powers,—this is the sense. And ‘when’, i.e. when during the period of nescience, ‘he’, i.e. a non-knower, ‘makes’ even the smallest ‘distinction’, i.e. relies on something else, viz. one or other of the ends, connected with means (other than a complete resort to the Lord alone), ‘then he comes to have fear’. Hence, it is 5

[sū. 1. 1. 20. 66 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.] established that that which consists of bliss is Brahman, different from all the sentient and the non-sentient ¹ Here ends the section entitled 'That which consists of bliss' (6). COMPARISON Śaṃkara This is sūtra 19 in his commentary. Reading and interpretation same, quotes the passage quoted by Śrīnivāsa. But here Śaṃkara changes his point of view all of a sudden, and after having given at length the very same interpretation as given by Nimbārka, viz. that the 'ānanda-maya' referred to in the Taittirīya-upaniṣad (Tait. 2.5) is the Highest Self,² and not the individual soul or pradhāna, he finally rejects it, at the end of this sūtra, in favour of another, viz. that the word 'Brahman' in the immediately following phrase. 'Brahma puccham pratiṣṭhā' (Tait 2.5), refers to Brahman prin- cipally, and not as a member of the 'ānanda-maya', for the 'ānanda- maya' would refer to the qualified Brahman, and never to the non- qualified Brahman, which is called 'ānanda', and not 'ānandamaya'.³ Bhāskara This is sūtra 19 in his commentary too. Reading same, inter- pretation of the word 'tad-yogam' slightly different—viz 'union with Him (the Lord)', i.e. salvation.⁴ (Cf. Śrīnivāsa.) Quotes a different portion of the same passage (viz the portion quoted by Śrīnivāsa). Śrīkaṇṭha Reading same, interpretation different—viz. 'Herein (viz. in the Mahā-nārāyaṇa-upaniṣad) (Scripture) teaches his (i.e. Hiraṇya- ¹ Note that here Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa understand the word 'śāsti' as referring to two different portions of the same passage, viz. Tait. 2 7, Nimbārka to the first part, Śrīnivāsa to the last. ² Vide Ś.B. 1.1.12, p. 217, 'Para evātmā ānanda-mayo bhavitum arhati' In this very sūtra also, it is said:—'Tasmād ānanda-mayaḥ paramātmā iti sthitam'. Ś.B. 1.1.19, p. 223. ³ Vide Ś.B. 1.1.19, pp. 225-26. ⁴ Bh. B. 1.1.19, p. 26.

[sū. 1. 1. 21 ADH. 7 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 67 garbha’s) connection with that (viz. the Supreme Lord) ’.¹ While according to Nimbārka, sūtras 13–20 form one section, concerned with the question of the ‘ānanda-maya’, according to Śrīkaṇṭha, Sūtras 13–16 form one section, while sūtras 17–20 form another different section, concerned with the question, as noted above, whether Hiraṇya- garbha is the creator of the world, or the Supreme Lord (viz. Śiva). Baladeva This is sūtra 19 in his commentary. Reading same, interpretation of the word ‘tad-yogam’ different, viz. ‘union with fearlessness’. Quotes the passage quoted by Śrīnivāsa.² Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled ‘That which is within’. (Sūtras 21-22) SŪTRA 21 “THAT WHICH IS WITHIN (THE SUN AND THE EYE) (IS NONE BUT THE HIGHEST SELF), ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF HIS QUALITIES.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha He who abides “within” the sun and the eye and is to be wor- shipped by one desiring salvation, is, truly, the Highest Self alone, and not a particular individual soul. Why? “On account of the teaching of the qualities belonging to Him” alone, viz. qualities like ‘freedom from sins’, ‘being the soul of all’ and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha In this manner, it has been shown in a general manner in the two sections that the stated texts all refer to Brahman, who is different from pradhāna as well as from the individual soul and is the cause of the origin and the rest of the world. Now, after having mentioned the peculiar qualities of the Lord, such as, possess- ing an eternally present, non-celestial body and so on, and then by showing the concordance of those texts (with regard to the Lord), the author denotes, up to the end of the section, the difference ¹ SK B. 1.1.20, pp 240-241, Part 3 ² G.B 1.1.19, pp. 76–77, Chap. 1.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 21 68 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7 ] of Brahman from particular individual souls who have attained eminence by virtue of supreme merit, as well as from particular non- sentient objects, like time and the like. In the Chāndogya, we read: 'Now, this golden Person, who is seen within the sun, has a golden beard and golden hair, and is golden through and through, right to the finger-nail tips. His eyes are like the full-blown lotus. His name is High, (because) he has risen above all sins. Verily, he who knows thus rises above all sins. His singers are the Ṛc and the Sāman . . . .¹ So much with reference to the gods' (Chānd 1.6 6-1 6 8), 'Now, with reference to the self' (Chānd. 1.7 1), 'Now, this person, who is seen within the eye' (Chānd 1.7.5) and so on. Here, a doubt arises, viz whether this Person, mentioned in Scripture as abiding within the sun and the eye, is a particular indivi- dual soul, or the Supreme Lord? What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: An individual soul who has attained eminence. Why? Because the person within the sun and the person within the eye are declared by Scripture to be possessed of a form in the passages (respectively): 'Having a golden beard, golden hair' (Chānd. 1.6 6), 'The form of this one is the very same as the form of that one' (Chānd. 1.7 5); because a limit to the lordship of both is declared respectively by the texts—'He rules these worlds which are beyond that, as well as the desires of gods' (Chānd. 1.6.8), 'He rules these worlds which are under that, as well as the desires of men' (Chānd 1.7 6), because the dependence of both on something else is declared (respectively) by the texts: 'Within the sun' (Chānd. 1.6.6), 'Within the eye' (Chānd. 1.7.5), and because the Supreme Self is declared to be just the opposite by the texts 'Without sound, without touch, without form' (Kaṭha 3.15), '"On what, my reverend Sir, is it based?' "On its own greatness"' (Chānd. 7.24.1), 'This is the Lord of beings' (Bṛh. 4.4.22), etc.— We reply: The Person, mentioned in Scripture as "within" the sun and the eye is the Highest Self alone. Why? "On account of the teaching of his qualities," i e. because of the "teaching", in this text, of the qualities "of him", viz. of the Highest Soul alone, such as, being free from sins in every way, being the remover of all the sins ¹ Quotation incomplete—viz:— 'His singers are the Ṛc and the Sāman Therefore (they are called) the udgītha' and so on See footnote 1, p. 69

[sū. 1. 1 21. ADH 7] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 69 of His own devotees, and so on, as well as, being the soul of all and the rest, thus · 'He, verily, is the Ṛc, the Sāman, the Uktha, the Yajus, He is Brahman'¹ (Chānd. 1.7 5), because in accordance with the scriptural texts: 'When the seer sees the golden-coloured person' (Muṇḍ. 3 1 3), 'Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness' (Śvet. 3.8; Gītā 8 9), 'That on which all these powers are based, O king, is another great form of Hari, different from the form of the world', and so on, like His natural qualities of possessing true desires and the rest, His possessing a form too, involves no contradiction; and because the text: 'Without sound, without touch, without colour' (Kaṭha 3 15) is concerned with denying sound and the like belonging to the material world. Nor is Brahman depicted here as possessed of a limited lordship, since the text setting forth such a limit is concerned with an arrangement of presiding deities. Nor can Brahman be said to be dependent on something else, since He is the support of all, in accordance with the following scriptural and Smṛti texts, viz. 'Entered within, the ruler of men' (Taitt. Ār 3.11 1, 2²), 'The Inner Soul of all beings' (Kaṭha 5.9, 10, 11, 5.12; Śvet. 6.11; Muṇḍ. 2.1.4), 'Who, abiding within the earth' (Bṛh. 3 7.3), '"And, I am situated within the hearts of all"' (Gītā 15.15), '"I abide, supporting the entire universe with a part of mine"' (Gītā 10.42), and so on. Here, by the Vedic text,—which is omniscient, independent of all proofs and authoritative by itself with regard to its own matter,— viz. 'This golden person who is seen within the sun, having a golden beard' (Chānd. 1 6.6) and so on, the body also of Brahman, the topic of discussion, suitable to Him, is mentioned, on the basis of direct perception alone, as evident from the statement: 'is seen'. From this it is known that the Highest Self is to be meditated on by one who desires salvation as possessed of a body. And, meditation too, to be mentioned hereafter,³ is possible only if the Highest Self be possessed of a body. The multitude of scriptural and Smṛti texts, referring to the body of the Lord, is not quoted here for fear of prolixity. ¹ Ṛc is a sacred verse, which is recited in praise of a deity; Sāman is a verse which is sung; Yajus is a sacred formula which is muttered, Uktha is a kind of recitation in sacrifices; Brahman is a sacred text or mantra, distinct from Ṛc, Sāman and Yajus. M.W., pp. 172, 225, 737. ² P. 181. ³ Vide V.K. 3.3.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 22. 70 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.] COMPARISON Śaṃkara This is sūtra 20 in his commentary. Reading and interpretation same, quotes the same passage. In conclusion, he adds that although the Supreme Lord is really arūpa or formless, yet He may assume various māyāmaya-rūpas for favouring His dovotees.¹ That is, all these passages, teaching the worship of the Person within the sun and so on, refer to the qualified Brahman only, and not to the highest Brahman, which of course Nimbārka does not admit. SŪTRA 22 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF DIFFERENCE, (THE HIGHEST SELF IS) OTHER THAN (THE INDIVIDUAL SOULS OF THE SUN AND THE REST)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The Highest Self is "other" than the group of individual souls of the sun and the rest.² Why? "On account of the designation of difference" in the text 'Abiding in the sun' (Bṛh. 3 7 9 ³) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason too, the Highest Self, is "other" than, i.e. different by nature from, the individual souls of the sun and the rest within which He abides. Why? "On account of the designation of differ- ence" between the individual soul and Brahman, in the text: 'Who abiding within the sun, is other than the sun, whom the sun does not know, of whom the sun is the body, who rules the sun from within, he is your soul, the inner controller, immortal' (Bṛh. 3.7.9). Thus, ¹ Ś B. 1.1 20, p. 232; 'Syāt parameśvarasyāpīcchā-vaśān māyāmayam rūpam sādhakānugrahārtham'. ² C S S ed. slightly different—viz 'The Highest Self is other than the group of the individual souls of the sun and the rest, within which He abides' (p. 5). ³ Ś, R, Bh, B.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 23. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 71 the difference of Brahman from the individual soul, within which He abides, is established. Here ends the section entitled ‘That which is within’ (7). Adhikarana 8: The section entitled ‘The ether’ (Sūtra 23) SŪTRA 23 “(BRAHMAN IS DENOTED BY THE WORD) ETHER, ON ACCOUNT OF HIS CHARACTERISTIC MARKS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text. ‘“What is the final refuge of this world?” “The ether”, said he’ (Chānd. 1.9.1 ¹), that which is denoted by the term “ether” is the Highest Self. Why? “On account of his characteristic marks,” such as, being the creator of all, and the like, mentioned in the text: ‘All these things, verily, arise from the ether alone’ (Chānd 1.9.1 ²) Vedānta-kaustubha In this manner, it has been shown, on the ground of the peculiar qualities of Brahman, the topic of discussion, that the text: ‘Now, this golden person who is seen within the sun’ (Chānd. 1.6 8) and so on, refers to Brahman, the topic of discussion. Now, it is being shown that the text: ‘“What is the final refuge of this world?”’ and so on too (Chānd 1.9.1) refers to Him, on the ground of the character- istic marks of Brahman. In the Chāndogya, we read the following under the dialogue between Śālāvatya and Jaivali. ‘“What is the final refuge of this world?”’ ‘“The ether,” said he, “All these beings, verily, arise from the ether alone, disappear into the ether; for the ether alone is greater than these, the ether is the supreme refuge”’ (Chānd. 1.9.1). Here a doubt arises, viz. whether the elemental ether is meant by the term ‘ether’, or the Highest Self. What is reasonable here? If it be sug- gested. As it is so well-known in the world and as it is declared also by Scripture to be the cause of the elements beginning with the air, 1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. 2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B

[sū. 1. 1. 23. 72 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 8] and so on, in the passage ‘From the “ether”, the “air”’ (Tait. 2.1), the elemental ether (is meant here)— We reply: In this text “the ether”, i.e. the object meant by the term ‘ether’, is the Highest Self alone. Why? “On account of his characteristic marks,” i.e. “his”, or the Highest Self’s, “characteristic marks”, viz. being the creator of all beings, being superior, being the supreme refuge, and so on,—on account of that,¹ i.e. on account of the peculiar qualities of the Highest Self. It cannot be said, also, that in accordance with the rule ‘When there is a collocation of scriptural statement, mark, text, topic, place and name, each following one is weaker (than each preceding one), on account of its remote- ness from the meaning’ (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.14 ²), the scriptural state- ment is of a greater force than the mark,—for in accordance with the rule: ‘The strength and weakness of those which are spoilt by meaning- lessness are in the opposite proportion’, the scriptural statement: ‘the ether’, is set aside by the mark mentioned in the text: ‘All these beings, verily, arise from the ether alone’ (Chānd. 1.9.1). If the word “ether” were to refer to the elemental ether, then no sense would follow, for such a mark (viz. being the creator of all) is not possible on the part of the elemental ether, on the contrary, the elemental ether is declared by Scripture to be created by the Highest Self, in the passage ‘From this soul, verily, the ether arose’ (Tait. 2.1). Further, on the ground of the etymological interpretation too (of the word ‘ether’ or ākāśa), viz. ‘The ether is that which shines everywhere’, ³ as well as on the ground of its conventional meaning, given in the passages: ‘If there were not this bliss in the ether’ (Tait. 2.7), ‘The ether, verily, is the revealer of names and forms’ (Chānd. 8.14.1) and so on, it is established that by the term “ether”, the Supreme Self alone is denoted. Here ends the section entitled ‘The ether’ (8). ¹ This explains the compound ‘tal-liṅgāt’. ² P. 284, vol. 1. Vide Śabara-bhāṣya. ³ Ā samantāt kāśata ity ākāśaḥ.

{sū. 1. 1. 24. ADH. 9 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 73 Adhikarana 9: The section entitled 'The vital- breath'. (Sūtra 24) SŪTRA 24 "FOR THIS VERY REASON (BRAHMAN IS DENOTED BY THE WORD) VITAL-BREATH." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text also 'All these beings, verily, enter into the vital- breath alone, arise from the vital-breath' (Chānd. 1.11.5 ¹), the vital-breath is none but the Highest Self, on account of the character- istic marks of Brahman, viz. entering into and coming out of Him Vedānta-kaustubha In this manner, it has been pointed out that the text referring to the ether denotes Brahman, and not the elemental ether Now, by declaring that the text about the udgītha,² viz. 'O Prastotr !' ³ (Chānd 1.10 9; 1.11.4) and so on, also refers to Brahman, the author extends here the same principle regarding the ether. In the Chāndogya we find the following concerning the udgītha ⁴ under the dialogue between Cākrāyaṇa and the Prastotṛ. '"O Pras- totṛ ! if you shall sing the prastāva ⁵ without knowing the Deity who is connected with the prastāva, then your head will fall off "' (Chānd. 1.10 9; 1.11.4), '"Which is that Deity?" "The vital- breath," said he, "All these beings, verily, enter into the vital-breath alone, arise from the vital-breath This is the Deity connected with the prastāva "' (Chānd. 1.11.4–5). Here a doubt arises, viz. As the entire world is found to exist as dependent on the vital-breath, and as it is so well-known in the world, so by the term 'vital-breath' a modification of the air too may be meant; and as in the text: '"For the mind, my dear, has the vital-breath as its fastening"' (Chānd. 6 8.2) and so on, the term 'vital-breath' is applied to Brahman, so Brahman may also be meant What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: Since everything is found to be dependent on the vital-

1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. 2 The word 'udgītha' is not included under the quotation. 3 A Prastotṛ is an assistant of the Udgātṛ, and sings the prastāva or the introductory eulogy or the prelude of a sāman. M.W., p. 699. 4 The word 'udgītha' is not included under the quotation. 5 The prastāva is the introductory eulogy or the prelude of a sāman. See footnote 3 above

[SŪ. 1. 1. 25. 74 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.] breath, since popularly the term 'vital-breath' is well-known to be a modification of the air, and since in the text: 'When, verily, a person sleeps, his speech goes to the vital-breath, his eye to the vital-breath, his ear to the vital-breath. When he wakes up, from the vital-breath alone they arise again' (Śat Br. 10 3.3.6 ¹), the entrance into a modification of the air and so on are mentioned, the chief vital-breath alone, which is a modification of the air and has five modes, is under- stood here by the term 'vital-breath',— We reply. "For this very reason", i.e. on account of the very characteristic marks of the Supreme Lord, viz. the entering into and coming out (of Him) of all the great elements, it is reasonable to hold that the object denoted by the term "vital-breath" is the Supreme Lord, the Highest Person alone. The characteristic marks of the Supreme Lord, viz. the entering into and the rising from Him of all the great elements, as mentioned in the text: 'All the elements enter into, i.e. merge into, and arise from, i.e. come out towards, Him', are not possible in the case of a modification of the air. In the text: 'When, verily, a person sleeps' (Śat. Br. 10.3.3.6), there is no mention of the entering and so on of the great elements, but simply of the entering and the rest of the sense-organs. Hence, on account of the marks of the Supreme Lord, as well as on the ground of the etymological interpretation (of the term 'vital-breath' or prāṇa), viz. 'In whom the entire world breathes excellently, i.e. finds a basis', it is established that the Highest Self alone is denoted by the term 'vital-breath'. Here ends the section entitled "The vital-breath" (9) Adhikarana 10: The section entitled 'The light' (Sūtras 25-28) SŪTRA 25 "(BRAHMAN IS DENOTED BY THE WORD) LIGHT, ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF FEET." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "The light", mentioned in the passage: 'The light (higher) than the heaven' (Chānd. 3.13.7 ²) is Brahman alone, "on account of the 1 P. 778, lines 9-11. Cf. a similar passage in Chānd. 4.3.3 2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[sū. 1. 1. 25. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 75 mention of feet", in the passage. '"One foot of him are all the ele- ments"' (Chānd. 3.12.6 ¹). Vedānta-kaustubha In this manner, it has been pointed out that the term 'ether', as well as the term 'vital-breath' refer to Brahman, all-pervading, untouched by any fault and the cause of all life. Now, the author is showing that the term 'light' also refers to Brahman. In the Chāndogya, it is recorded: 'Now, the light which shines higher than this heaven, on the backs of all, on the backs of everything, in the highest worlds than which there are no higher,—that, verily, is the same light which is within this person' (Chānd. 3.13.7) Here, a doubt arises, viz whether the term 'light' denotes the well- known light of the sun and so on, or the Highest Self. What is reason- able here? The prima facie view is as follows. It denotes the light of the sun and the rest. Why? Because that is well-known to be a remover of darkness, because Scripture mentions a limit in the passage : 'The light which shines higher than this heaven' (Chānd. 3.13.7), because no limit is possible on the part of Brahman, because Scripture speaks of a minor fruit in the passage: 'He who knows this becomes agreeable to the eyes, and renowned' (Chānd. 3.13.8), and, finally, because from the passage: 'That, verily, is the same light, which is within this person' (Chānd. 3.13.7), its identity with the fire within the belly is known. On this suggestion, we reply: Here the object denoted by the term "light" is the Supreme Brahman alone, possessed of unsurpassed splendour. Why? "On account of the mention of feet" Thus, in the text, which precedes the text about the 'light', viz. 'So much is His greatness, and the Person is higher than this One foot of him are all beings, three feet of him, the immortal in the heaven' (Ṛg-V. 10.10.3, Chānd. 3.12.6), Brahman is mentioned as having four feet. Thus, all beings constitute His one foot Having all beings as one foot is possible on the part of the Supreme Brahman alone, and never on the part of any one else. Nor is any contradiction involved in the declaration of His having the heaven as His limit, because, as the word 'higher' in the passage: 'What is higher than this' (Chānd. 3 13 7) denotes superiority, it is not meant to denote non-comprehensiveness,

1 Ś, R, ŚK, B

[SŪ. 1. 1. 26. 76 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.] and because from the passage ‘That the gods worship as the Light of lights, as Life’ (Bṛh. 4.4.16) the term ‘light’ is known to be referring to Brahman. Nor is any contradiction involved in the declaration of a minor fruit, because Brahman is the giver of fruits in accordance with the fitness of persons. As it is declared in the ‘Mystery of Fire’ ¹ of the Vājasaneyins ‘As one worships him, so he becomes’ (Śat. Br. 10 5 2 10 ²), and by the Lord Himself, in the passage — “‘Whosoever, in whatever way, resorts to me, him, in that same way, do I favour’” (Gītā 4.11). And, the purpose of the meditation on the identity (of the Lord) with the fire within the belly is to be known from the text: “‘I, having become the Vaiśvānara ³, abide within the bodies of living beings, and united with the prāṇa and the apāna,⁴ I digest the four kinds of food’” (Gītā 15.14). SŪTRA 26 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF THE METRE, (BRAHMAN IS) NOT (DENOTED), (THEN, WE REPLY:) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECLARATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE MIND (TO BRAHMAN) THUS, FOR THUS IT IS SEEN (IN OTHER PAS- SAGES TOO).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that “on account of the mention” of the metre called ‘Gāyatrī’ in the preceding text, the text referring to the feet may refer to that and not to Brahman,—(we reply:) “No, on account of the declaration of the application of the mind” to the Lord, who is denoted by the term ‘Gāyatrī’ owing to the connection of the latter with certain qualities.⁵ Compare the word ‘virāj’ which illustrates a parallel case.⁶

¹ Agni-rahasya is the title of the tenth book of the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa. ² P. 725, line 13 Cf. a very similar passage in Mudg. 3, p. 384, lines 8-9. ³ That is, the fire of digestion. ⁴ The prāṇa is one of the five modes of the chief vital-breath, and apāna is another. The first goes upwards the nose, the second goes downwards through the anus. Vide V.R.M. ⁵ That is, the Gāyatrī is said to possess certain qualities, which can belong to the Lord alone. Hence, the Lord is really denoted by the term ‘Gāyatrī’. See V.K. below. ⁶ We find that in other passages, too, a word, primarily denoting a metre, may stand for something else, e g. the word ‘virāj’ primarily denotes a kind of

[sū. 1. 1. 26 ADH 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 77 Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected: As the Gāyatrī metre is referred to in the preced- ing passage viz.. 'The Gāyatrī, verily, is all this' (Chānd. 3.12.1), the designation of beings as the foot, viz. 'One foot of him are all beings' (Chānd 3.12 6), may refer to this very metre. It is not reasonable to hold that this text establishes Brahman,— (We reply.) "No." Why? "On account of the declaration of the application of the mind thus," i.e. on account of the mention of the fixing of the mind "thus" to Brahman who is denoted by the term 'Gāyatrī', since the latter is predicted to be the soul of all, in the passage 'The Gāyatrī, verily, is all this' (Chānd. 3 12.1) Here, the term 'Gāyatrī' denotes Brahman who inheres in the metre, it being impossible for a metre, which is a mere collection of letters, to be the soul of all. "For thus it is seen," i.e. in very same manner, a parallel case is mentioned in the Aitarīya-upaniṣad, in the passage:— "The Bahvrcas consider Him in the great-hymn, the Adhvaryus in the sacrificial fire, the Chandogas in the Mahā-vrata ceremony" ¹ (Ait. Ār. 3.2 3, 12). The sense is that those who are conversant with the Rg-veda, those who are conversant with the Sāma-veda, and those metre, yet it denotes the 'kṛta' or the group of ten substances in Chānd. 4 3 8. Similarly, though the word 'Gāyatrī' denotes a kind of metre, yet it may denote Brahman too. See V K below. C S.S. ed. reads: 'Kṛta-para',—meaning comes to the same, viz. the word 'vyāg' stands for the 'kṛta'. ¹ A Bahvrca is one conversant with the Ṛg-veda, a priest of it, or the Hotṛ priest who represents it in the sacrificial ceremonies. M.W., p. 726. An Adhvaryu is a priest of a particular class, as distinguished from the Hotṛ, the Udgātṛ and the Brāhmaṇa classes. He has to measure the ground, build the altar and so on, and while engaged in these duties, he has to repeat the hymns of the Yajurveda. Vide op. cit., p. 24 A Chandoga is a chanter of the Sāma-veda, an Udgātṛ priest. Vide op. cit., p. 405. The Mahat-uktha (great hymn) or the Bṛhat-uktha forms a series of verses, in three sections, each containing eighty Tṛcas or triple verses, recited at the end of the Agni-cayana. An Uktha is a verse which is recited, as distinguished from the Sāman verse which is sung, and the Yajus or sacred formula which is muttered. It forms a subdivision of the Śastras. Vide op. cit., p. 172. See footnote 1, p. 78. Mahā-vrata is the name of a great religious observance. It is also the name of a Sāman or Stotra, appointed to be sung on the last day but one of the Gavām- ayana. Vide M.W., p. 800.

78 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 1. 26 ADH. 10.] who are conversant with the Yajur-veda consider, respectively in the chief Śāstra ¹, sacrificial fire, and the Mahā-vrata, Brahman who inheres in them severally, like this, Brahman inheres in the (Gāyatrī) metre. Or, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra,) just as the Gāyatrī is a class of metre which consists of four feet, each consisting of six syllables ², so Brahman, too, has four feet in accordance with the text: 'One foot of him are all beings, three feet, the immortal in the heaven' (Chānd. 3.12.6). Accordingly, on account of the mention of the fixing of the mind to Brahman who is metaphorically denoted by the word 'Gāyatrī' in virtue of the fact that both possess the quality of having four feet, the Gāyatrī is not recognized here, but Brahman alone. “For thus it is seen,” i.e. in the very same manner, a term denoting a metre is found applied,—in a literal (as opposed to a metaphorical) sense,³—even to a different object in virtue of the fact that both possess a common quality. Thus, beginning: 'These five and the other five make ten, and that is the kṛta' ⁴ (Chānd. 4.3.8), the text goes on to say: 'That is the Virāj, the eater of food' (Chānd. 4.3.8). Here under the saṁvargavidyā ⁵, the term 'Virāj', ¹ A Śāstra is a verse recited by the Hotṛ and his assistants. Vide M.W., p. 1044. ² Vide the verse: 'Indraś śacī-patiḥ / Balena pīḍitaḥ / duscyavano vrṣā / samitsu sāsahiḥ' / Śrī. B. 1.1.26, p. 216, Part 1. ³ See end of footnote 5 below ⁴ Kṛta is the name of the die marked with four points ⁵ The Saṁvarga-vidyā or the knowledge concerning the snatcher-unto- itself, taught by Raikva to Jānaśruti Vide Chānd. 4.3. The wind is the snatcher-unto-itself among the gods, the vital-breath is the snatcher-unto- itself among the sense-organs The wind absorbs fire, the sun, the moon and water. The vital-breath absorbs speech, the eye, the ear and the mind And, the wind, together with its four kinds of food, viz fire, the sun, the moon and water—these five, and the vital-breath, together with its four kinds of food, viz. speech, the eye, the ear and the mind—these five, make ten or the 'kṛta', which is called the 'Virāj'. Here, the Kṛta has actually ten constituent parts, just as the Virāj metre has actually ten syllables. Hence these two are said to resemble each other in a literal sense, and not in a figurative one, as opposed to the case of Brahman and Gāyatrī, since when it is said that Brahman has four feet, it is not meant that He has actually four feet, but only metaphorically, while Gāyatrī has actually four feet or parts. Hence, here the term 'gauṇa' has been used in connection with the latter case, and the term 'śākya' in con- nection with the former. Vide V.K. above.

[sū. 1. 1 27. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 79 which is a class of metre of ten syllables, is found applied to a collection of ten objects or the kṛta. COMPARISON Śaṁkara This is sūtra 25 in his commentary. Reading same. He gives two alternative explanations of the sūtra Under the first, he points out that the passage ‘The Gāyatrī, verily, is all this’ (Chānd. 3.12 1) intimates that by means of the metre Gāyatrī, the mind is to be directed to Brahman who is connected with the Gāyatrī as its cause, just as devout meditation on Brahman under the form of certain effects of Brahman is mentioned in other passages, viz. Aitereya-āraṇyaka. (See Śrīnivāsa above.) Under the second, he points out that according to some, the term Gāyatrī directly denotes Brahman, since both possess four feet, and quotes a Chāndogya passage as an example. (See Śrīnivāsa above )¹ Rāmānuja Reading slightly different—viz. ‘nigmāt’ in place of ‘nigadāt’. Interpretation same ² Baladeva This is sūtra 25 in his commentary too. Reading and interpre- tation same, only the interpretation of the phrase ‘Tathā hi darśanam’ different. He does not take it as referring to one specific parallel instance as Nimbārka does but understands ‘darśanam’ in the sense of ‘consistency’, and the phrase means, according to him, ‘for by such an explanation alone the above passage gives a consistent meaning ’.³ SŪTRA 27 “AND BECAUSE THE DESIGNATION OF THE BEINGS AND SO ON AS THE FEET IS APPROPRIATE (ONLY IF BRAHMAN BE DENOTED BY THE TERM “GĀYATRĪ”), THIS IS SO.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha We hold that the Gāyatrī is Brahman not only ‘on account of the declaration of the application of the mind thus’ (last part of Br. ¹ S B 1 1.25. ² Śrī. B. 1.1.26, p. 215, vol. 1. ³ G.B. 1.1.25, pp 91-92, Chap. 1.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 28. 80 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.] Sū. 1.1.26), but "this is so also because" (the four feet, viz.) beings, earth, body and heart,¹ are "appropriate" on the part of Brahman, the Lord (alone) Vedānta-kaustubha For this reason "also", in the text 'The Gāyatrī, verily, is all this' (Chānd. 3 12.1), the object denoted by the term 'Gāyatrī' is Brahman. For what reason? "Because the designation of beings and so on as the feet is appropriate", i e. also because the designation, viz. that the Gāyatrī has four feet,—called beings, earth, body and heart,—is appropriate on the part of Brahman alone, and not on the part of the Gāyatrī metre which is but a collection of letters SŪTRA 28 "IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF TEACHING, (BRAHMAN IS) NOT (RECOGNIZED), (WE REPLY:) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF THERE BEING NO CONTRADICTION EVEN IN BOTH CASES." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that first the heaven is referred to as a 'locus', and then again, as a 'limit', and there being such "a difference of teaching", Brahman is "not" recognized,— (We reply·) "no". Why? "Because there is no contradiction," in both the cases, with regard to the oneness of Brahman (i.e in point of proving the very same Brahman). Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected:—The heaven is referred to as a 'locus', by the locative case-ending, in the previous case, viz. : 'The three feet of him are the immortal in the heaven (divi)' (Chānd. 3 12 6), but as a 'limit', by the ablative case-ending, in the text 'Now, the light that shines higher than the heaven (divaḥ)' (Chānd. 3 13.7). Thus, "on account of the difference of teaching", resulting from the difference of the case-endings, Brahman is not recognized in the text concerning the light (viz. Chānd. 3.13.7)— ¹ Vide Chānd. 3 12.1–4.

[Sū. 1. 1. 29. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 81 (We reply.) Such an objection cannot be raised. Why? "In both the cases", i.e. in the case of the locative as well as in the case of the ablative, the oneness of the root-meaning, which is the main thing, is not set aside by the meaning of the case-endings, which is subsidiary only; just as the expressions: 'A hawk on the top of the tree', 'A hawk above the tree' (mean the same thing). Hence, it is established that the object denoted by the term "light" is the Supreme Brahman alone, possessed of unsurpassed splendour. Here ends the section entitled 'The light' (10) Adhikarana 11. The section entitled 'Indra and the vital-breath' (Sūtras 29-32) SŪTRA 29 "(BRAHMAN IS DENOTED BY THE WORD) VITAL-BREATH, ON ACCOUNT OF INTELLIGIBILITY IN THAT WAY" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: 'I am the vital-breath' (Kauṣ. 3.2¹) and so on, the object denoted by the term 'vital-breath' and the rest, is the Highest Self, because the qualities of highest auspiciousness, endless- ness and so on are intelligible only if the Highest Self be understood. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, by showing, in the following four aphorisms, that the Kauṣītaki-texts all refer to Brahman, the author refutes the view that words like 'vital-breath', 'Indra' and so on mean the individual soul. In the Kauṣītaki-brāhmaṇa-upaniṣad, the Pratardana-vidyā is recorded, beginning: 'Pratardana, verily, the son of Divodāsa, arrived by fighting and valour at the beloved abode of Indra' (Kauṣ. 3.1). It is said here: Being told by Indra: '"I will give you a boon"' (Kauṣ. 3 1), Pratardana said: '"Do you yourself choose (a boon) for me,² what you consider to be the most beneficial for mankind"' (Kauṣ. ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² The word 'varam' is not included in the original text. 6