Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha of Nimbarka Vedanta-Kaustubha of Srinivasa (Commentaries on the Brahma-Sutras) Translated and Annotatbd by Roma Bose, M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.) VEDANTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA OF NIMBARKA AND VEDANTA-KAUSTUBHA or SRINIVASA (COMMENTARIES ON THE BRAHMA-SUTRAS) TRANSLATED AND ANNOTATBO BY ROMA BOSE, M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.) Volume I PRINTED AT THE BAPTIST MISSION PBBS8 WBIXBBXD BY THB BOYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY Or BBNOAL CALCUTTA 1040 PREFACE Nimb&rka's commentary on the Brahma-Sutras known as the Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha, and that of his immediate disciple &rinivasa styled the Vedanta-Kaustubha are the chief works of the school of philosophy associated with the name of Nimbarka. The latter is not, however, a mere commentary on the former, as is some- times wrongly supposed, but a full exposition of the views expressed in the Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha which is very terse and concise and is not always clear. Both the treatises are therefore essential for the proper understanding of the doctrine of Nimbarka. Hitherto no translation of either of these works was available .in the English language, and the task was undertaken by Dr. Roma Bose (Chaudhuri) at the suggestion of Prof. F. W. Thomas, Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Oxford, under whose super- vision it was carried out during 1934-1936, as part of the thesis for the Degree of D.Phil, of that University. This authoritative English Edition of the Vedanta-Parijata- Saurabha has been prepared after carefully comparing the manuscripts Nos. E164, 2480, 2481 and 3273 of the India Office Library and the printed Sanskrit texts of the Kasi, Brindaban and Chowkhamba Series. The translation of the Vedanta-Kaustubha was based on the Sanskrit texts of the Kasi and Brindaban editions. Differences of readings of the various manuscripts and printed texts of both the treatises have been noted in the footnotes. As is well-known the doctrine of Advaita, as developed by Samkara, was the earliest of the Vedantic systems, and in the great efflorescence of philosophic thought in India during the 9th-16th centuries, various schools of thought arose, mostly as protests against the extreme views held by the Advaita school. There is no doubt that by reason of its great metaphysical appeal and the rigid application of logical canons, Samkara 's Advaita- vada exercised the most profound influence on Indian thought and marked him out as the greatest philosophical genius born in this country. His insistence, however, on the sole reality of 'Abheda' or non-difference and the unreality of Bheda or difference evoked strong reactions, the foremost of which was the Visistadvaita-vada of Ramanuja, whose importance was only second to that of Samkara. According to him the reality is not an abstract Vi PKEFAOB concept in the Samkarite sense in which the non-difference completely loses its identity, but is a synthetic unity of both — the relation between the two being that of the substance-attribute. That is, the attribute is different from the substance in the sense tbat it inheres in it though the latter cannot be equated with any particular attribute and is not a mere assemblage of them all, but is something over and above. In other words, the substance and the attribute, or the unity and plurality are both real and form an organic whole, and the relation between them is the relation of non-difference, and not of absolute identity. R&manuja's doctrine is hence known as ViSistadvaita-vada or qualified monism as against the absolutism of Samkara. Srikantha, who followed Ramanuja, agreed that the relation between the Brahman and the Universe was that of non-difference, but while the latter identified Brahman with Visnu, according to Srikantha it was Siva. His theory is therefore called ViSista-Sivadvaita-vada. The school of Bhaskara holds that both the unity and plurality are real. The relation between the two is one of difference— non-difference during the effected state of Brahman, i.e. during the cosmic existence and creation, but one of complete identity during the causal state of Brahman, i.e. during salvation and dissolution. In other words, the individual Soul or Jiva, during the state of Samsara, is different from Brahman due to the presence of the Upadhis (limiting adjuncts) such as the body, the sense organs, etc, but when these are not present and it is Mukta, the Jiva becomes absolutely identical with Brahman of which it is only the effect. Similarly, the world is both different and non-different from Brahman during creation, but identical with Him in Pralaya (dissolution). Hence Bhaskara 's view is known as 'Aupadhika-Bhedabheda-vada', i.e. the Bhedabheda relation between Brahman and the Universe is only Aupddhika or due to the limiting adjuncts only and therefore lasts as long as these adjuncts last. But when the Samsara is over and the Upadhis are no more, there is no longer any Bhedabheda between Brahman and the Universe, the former alone becomes the reality and no separate soul or matter can then exist. Baladeva's school also admitted the reality of both the unity and plurality. In a sense, both the Jiva and the Jagat are different from Brahman but in another they are non-different as effects of Brahman. This relation of difference-non-difference is transcendental and cannot be comprehended by reason and must be accepted on the authority of the Scriptures (revelation). His doctrine goes, therefore, PREFACE Vll under the name of 'Acintya-Bhedabheda-vSda', i.e. the Bheddbheda relation of Brahman and the Universe is Acintya or incomprehensible by reason. The doctrine of Nimbarka, which developed in the atmosphere of general reaction against Samkara's Advaitism, shared the views of the above schools in their insistence on the reality of the Many. According to Nimbarka, Brahman and Jiva-Jagat are equally real as was also held by Ramanuja, but the difference between them is not superseded by non-difference as the latter supposed. In fact, the difference between the two is just as significant as their non-difference. While it is true, as Ramanuja thought, that the Jiva-Jagat or the entire universe inheres in the unity of Brahman as an organic whole and as such can lay no claim to separate existence, yet as the effect is different from the cause, in the same sense is the Many different from the One, and their difference is as fundamental as their non-differonce. Nimbarka's system has therefore been called the Svabhdvika-Bhedd- bheda-vada in which the relation between Brahman and the Jiva-Jagat is regarded as one of eternal difference-non-difference during Samsara or the cosmic existence as well as Pralaya or dissolution, and not only during the former state as Bhaskara thought. According to his view even the freed Soul (Mukta-Jlvatman) is both different and non- different from Brahman and even in Pralaya does the Jagat inhere in Brahman as a distinct entity. In her English rendering of the Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha and Vedanta-Kaustubha, Dr. Bose has not only given Nimbarka's reading and interpretation of each Sutra, but has compared them with those of Samkara, Ramanuja, Srikan$ha, Bhaskara and Baladeva belonging to the antagonistic and allied schools of the Vedanta Philosophy. Differences from the religious and ethical grounds have not either been ignored. The present work therefore is not to be considered as a mere translation, but it gives also reviews of the main tenets of the post-Samkara theistic schools which arose in opposition to Advaita-Ved&ntism, though the full philosophical exposition of Nimbarka's doctrine and the comparative study of the development of Indian thought during this period has been discussed by her in a separate work which will form the third and concluding volume of this series. The work consists of four chapters. In Chapter I (Samanvayadhy&ya), it is sought to establish that Brahman is the sole subject of all Scriptures. The nature of Brahman, His attributes and Viji PBBFAOE the sources of our knowledge of Him are discussed in this chapter. In Chapter II (Avirodhddhydya) , Nimbarka first refutes the rival views of Samkhya-Yoga, Nyaya-Vaisesika, Buddhism, Jainism, Saivaism and &aktaism, and considers the problems of Jiva and Jagat, their natures and attributes and the manner in which they are related to Brahman. These two chapters are purely metaphysical and supply the philosophical foundations of the doctrine of Nimbarka. The remaining ones are chiefly of devotional and ethical interests. In Chapter III (Sadhanadhyaya), for example, the means of attaining Moksa (salvation), the nature and importance of meditations as mentioned in the Upanishads are discussed. In Chapter IV (Phalddhyaya), Nimbarka gives his views on Moksa, the fruit and the conditions of the Mukta (released) Jlvatman or soul, etc. According to him Moksa or salvation implies two conditions, namely, the attain- ment of qualities and nature similar to Brahman (Brahma-Svarupa- labha), and the full development of one's own individuality (Atma- Svarupa-l&bha). This full development means the complete manifesta- tion of one's real nature as consciousness (Jnana-Svariipa) and bliss (Ananda), untainted and unimpeded by matter which screens it during Samsara, and deceives it into believing that it is solf-suflicient and independent of Brahman. When, however, Moksa is attained, it is realized that it is dependent on Brahman as His organic part and in that sense non-different from Him. It implies the destruction of narrow egoity, but not the annihilation of individuality as is the goal of the Advaita school. Nimbarka's ideas on Moksa or salvation therefore are the logical outcome of his theistic mind which seeks to find a place for the devotional soul without completely merging it in Brahman. The first two chapters containing the metaphysical portion of the work is now issued as Volume I consisting of 474 pages. Volume II will comprise the remaining two chapters and indexes for both the volumes. The latter is expected also to be published during this year. B. S. GUHA, 29th February, 1940. General Secretary, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyaya) FIRST QUARTER (Pada) Adhikarana 1: The section entitled 'Enquiry'. (Sutra 1) SCTRA 1 " THEN, THEREFORE, AK BNQUIBY INTO BBAHMAN." THE EXPLANATION OF THE BBAHMA-StTTBAS ENTITLED VEDiNTA- PIRIJATA-SAURABHA, COMPOSED BY THE BEVEREND NIMBARKA. An enquiry is to be instituted, at all times, into the Highest Person, — Rama's Husband, denoted by the term " Brahman ", the greatest of all because of His infinite, inconceivable and innate nature, qualities, powers and so on, — by one who has studied the Veda with its six parts * ; who has been assailed with doubt, arising from texts which teach 2 that the fruits of works are both transitory and eternal 8 ; who has, for that very reason, enquired into the science which is concerned with the consideration of religious duties, 4 and has, thereby, gained the knowledge determined therein B regarding works, their kinds and their fruits ; in whom, as a conse- quence, there arisen a disregard (for worldly objects), that is the result of a discrimination between the finitude and eternity of the 1 The six parts are : — (a) tfikqa or the science of proper articulation and pronunciation, comprising the knowledge of letters, accents, quantity, the use of the organs of pronunciation, and phonetics generally, but especially the laws of euphony peculiar to the Veda; (6) Chandaha or treatises on metre; (c) Vyakaratpa or treatises on grammar; (d) Nirukta or treatises on the explanation of difficult words; (e) Jyotisa or treatises on astronomy; and (/) Kalpa or treatises on ceremonials. The first and second of these Vedaftgaa are said to be intended to secure the correot recitation of the Veda, the third and fourth the understanding of it, the fifth and sixth its proper employment at sacrifice. M.W., p. 1016. 2 Prakfafeija karoti iti prakaravam, tad-vad vdkyam. * I.e. Whose mind is assailed with doubt owing to the contradictory teachings regarding the fruits of works, some texts declaring that the fruits of works are transitory, while others declaring that they are eternal. Cf. V.K., 1.1.1. * I.e. the PQrva-mimSmsS. * I.e. the Pwtva-rr&mS/rpaS,. [sO. 1. 1. 1. 2 VEDlNTA-XATTSTUBHA ADH. 1.] fruits of the knowledge of works and Brahman respectively, the former being surpassable, the latter non-surpassable 1 ; who wishes for the grace of the Lord ; who is covetous of having a vision of TTim ; to whom the spiritual preceptor is the only God ; who has whole-hearted devotion for the holy spiritual teacher ; and who is desirous of final release — this is the sense of the introductory text. The commentary entitled 'Vedanta-kaustubha', composed by the reverend teacher Srmivasa. Panegyric 1. I worship the holy Swan 8 , Sanaka and others 8 , the Divine Sage 4 , and Nimbabhaskara 6 : May a devotion for Lord Krsna arise in us through their grace. 2. I bow down to the feet of Lord Krsna, in reference to whom alone the mass of scriptural texts does not come into mutual conflict, whom those who are engaged in meditation and Yoga obtain, and who is to be worshipped constantly by Varuna and Indra with mind and speech. Finding that the people on earth were being deluded by various sorts of false arguments, Lord Vasudeva, the Highest Person, the Lord of all, and the one identical material and efficient cause of the entire universe, assumed the form of the son of Parasara 6 and com- posed the Vedanta-treatise, called the 'S&rfraka-mim&msa' 7 , with a 1 I.e. in whose mind has arisen a disgust for all worldly pursuits and objects, since he has apprehended the great distinction between the fruits of works, viz. ordinary worldly objects and heaven, and the fruit of the knowledge Brahman, viz. salvation. Even heaven has an end, but not so salvation, and even heaven is not the highest end, but salvation is. See V.K. 1.1.1. 8 The Swan Incarnation of Brahma is supposed to be the Founder of the sect of NimbSrka. * The Four Kumaras, Sanaka and others, the second spiritual teachers of the sect. * I.e. NSrada, supposed to be the third spiritual teacher of the sect and the immediate guru of NimbSrka. * I.e. NimbSrka. * ParSSara is supposed to be the father of VySsa, the reputed author of the Brahma-rtUrat. 7 There is difference of opinion as to why the VedSnta-sutras or the Brahma-suiras are called the ' S&riraka-mlmdmaS '. According to the Ratna- [30. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDANTA-KAUSTUBHA 3 view to augmenting in the people knowledge and devotion regard- ing Himself and establishing the Highest Brahman in a manner beyond doubt. Then, the supremely merciful reverend Nimbarka, the founder of the sect of the reverend Sanatkumara, composed a commentary, very difficult to understand, called the 'Vedanta-pari- jata-saurabha' (Fragrance of the Heavenly Flower of the Vedanta), as an explanation of the- texts of the Sariraka-mlmamsa. Then, again, through his command, and with a view to benefiting the wise, the ' Vedanta-kaustubha ' (Gem of the Vedanta), which is easy, concise and explains the sense of the' Vedanta-parijata-saurabha', is being composed by me, his disciple, following the path recommended by him and wishing to obtain his favour. If it be argued : our purpose being served through an enquiry into religious duties simply, what is the use of an enquiry into Brah- man ? — we reply: since religious duties yield non-permanent fruits, an enquiry into Him is to be undertaken for the sake of obtaining unsurpassed and infinite bliss. Here the word "then" implies 'succession', and not any other sense, there being no previous distinct mention. It cannot be said that in conformity with the statement, viz. ' The word " om " and the word " atha " formerly issued forth from the throat of Brahman, and hence both are auspicious', (the word "atha") here indicates aus- piciousness, — because this treatise being auspicious by itself in sound as well as in meaning, does not await any other auspiciousness ; because good luck is obtained through the mere hearing of it ; and because in the very same way, the other meanings of the term "then", viz. special prerogative and the rest 1 are not appropriate here. Moreover, a word, pronounced with one particular sense in view, should not be employed in any other sense. Here the intended sense is 'succession', since the word " therefore" refers to something prabha commentary on 6.B., they are so called because they treat of the Brahman-hood of the embodied soul. (' S'Srirako jivas tasya Brahmatva vicaro mtmdmsS.' P. 64, KasI ed., Part I.) According to Baladeva, however, Brahman is ' i&rlra ' or embodied since Scripture declares that the whole universe is the body of the Lord. Hence the Ved&nta-eittras are called the ' Sanraka-mimamsS', because they deal with Brahman, the iarira (the embodied). O.B. 1.1.12. 1 For the different meanings of the term 'atha' vide A.K., p. 311, line 8. [80.1.1.1. 4 VEDlKTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] previous. Hence, the word "then" has the sense of 'succession' only; the word " therefore" implies the reason. The reality which is obtainable by one who is devoted to the sound-Brahman, — in accordance with the following and other scriptural and Smrti texts, viz. ' He who does not know the Veda does not know Him, the Great', ' There are two Brahmans to be known, the sound-Brahman and what is Higher. Those who know the sound-Brahman go to the Higher Brahman'. (Maitri 6.22), — and which is possessed of the characteristics to be mentioned here- after, is the object denoted by the term ' Brahman '. The word " enquiry " denotes a desire for the knowledge of the desired Brahman. Although the supplial of the verb (in the indicative mood, viz. •arises') is appropriate here thus: "Then", i.e. afterwards, "there- fore", i.e. for this reason, an " enquiry into Brahman " arises, it being possible for people with insight to have a spontaneous desire for enquiring into a particular object (viz. Brahman) (without being definitely told or enjoined by Scripture to do so), yet in concordance with the text : ' , the self verily is to be seen, to be heard, to be thought, to be meditated on, it is to be enquired into ' (Brh. 2.4.5 ; 4.5.6), we must understand here a grammatical concordance with a word implying injunction, viz. 'should arise'. 1 In accordance with the scriptural text: 'Desiring for release, one should see the self in the self alone' (Brh. 4.4.23), the words 'one who desires for release' in the instrumental case, are implied here — such is the construction of the words (in the sutra) 2 . Here the term " then", implying ' succession ', means : After the knowledge regarding the nature of religious duties, the means thereto, the mode of performing them and their fruits — which form the subject of the enquiry into religious duties. 8 Thus, having studied the Veda with its parts,* — being first properly 1 That is, we can of course make the sutra complete thus :'Then, there- fore, an enquiry into Brahman (arises) ', but it is better to complete it thus : 'Then, therefore, an enquiry into Brahman (should arise)', and make the sutra an injunction and not a plain statement. * Thus, the entire antra really means: ' (Mumuhs una) athSto Brahma- jijnasa (kartavy&Y, or '(By one who desires salvation) then, therefore, an enquiry into Brahman (should be made)'. * I.e. the PHrva-mlmamsa. * See footnote (*), p. 1. [su. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 5 initiated, as enjoined by the text 'One's own scripture should be studied' 1 ; having found, in a general way, the texts which are mutual- ly contradictory, some depicting the non-permanence and others the permanence of the fruits of works thus : 'Undocaying, indeed, is the good deed of one who performs the Catur-masya 2 sacrifices ' (Ap.S.S. 8.1.1 8 ), 'We have drunk the soma-juice, we have become immortal' (Rg. V. 8.48.3*), 'Where there would be no heat, no cold, no weakness, no opponents' and so on 5 , and, 'Just as here the world, obtained through merit perish' (Chand. 8.6.1), 'That (work) of his has an end' (Brh. 3.8.10), 'The permanent, verily, cannot be obtained through the non-permanent (Katha 1.2.10), ' What is not made is not (obtained) through what is made' (Mund. 1.2.12), 'Frail, indeed, are these boats of sacrifices' (Mund. 1.2.7), and so on; 8 being thereby assailed with doubt; and unable to determine (the exact nature of the fruits of works) in particular, one, with a view to re- moving it (viz. the doubt), proceeds to make an enquiry into religious duties, and having, through such an enquiry, determined properly the nature of works, the mode of performing them and their fruits, one comes to have such a knowledge, — after that, this is the sense. 7 The word "therefore" means 'because of the reason'. That is, the enquiry into Brahman should be undertaken, because the fruit of works are ascertained to be finite and surpassable from the scriptural passage : 'Just as here the world acquired by work perishes, so exactly hereafter, the world acquired by merit perishes' (Chand. 8.1.6), and from the Smrti passage : '" The worlds beginning with the world of Brahma come and go, Arjuna'" (Glta 8.16); secondly, because 1 A similar passage is found in Tait. At. 2.15, p. 1S3. 2 Name of the three sacrifices performed at the beginning of the three seasons of four months. Vide Ved. In., p. 259, vol. 1. a P. 1, vol. 1. * P. 139, line 3. . * These texts denote the permanence of the fruits of work. 6 These texts denote the non-permanence of the fruits of works. 7 That is, first a man studies (a) the Veda and finds mutually contra- dictory statements about the fruits of works. (6) This leads him to study the Purm-rmmarpad, with a view to learning the real nature of works and their fruits, and he finds that the fruits of works are not everlasting, (c) This leads him to study the Vedania, with a view to attaining what is permanent, viz. salvation. Hence the term 'atha' means that the Vedanta is to be studied after the study of the Veda and the Pdrva-mimairtsa. [SO. 1. 1. 1. 6 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] that the knowledge of Brahman has a fruit which is unsurpassed and endless is ascertained from the following scriptural and Smrti passages : ' Knowing him alone, one surpasses death, there is no other road to salvation' (SVet. 3.8.), ' When men will roll up the sky like a piece of leather, then there will be an end of misery, (even) without knowing the Deity' 1 (Svet. 6.20), 'Knowing the Deity, they are free from all fetters' (Svet. 1.8; 2.15), 'He who, having searched the self, knows it, attains all the worlds and all objects of desires' (Chand. 8.7.1.3), 'The person, of the size of a thumb only, abides in the self' (Katha 4.12), 'Knowing him one surpasses death, there is no other path to salvation ', * " Many people, purified by the penance of knowledge, have come to be of my nature ' ' ' (Gita 4.10), 'He who possesses knowledge attains me' (Gita 7.19), ' " Knowing me one attains peace ' ' ' (Gita 5.20) and so on; and, finally, because we find that one who is unacquainted with the self has been censured in Scripture as a wretched fellow and a self-killer, in the passages : 'Verily he who, Gargi, departs from this world, without knowing this Imperishable, is a vile and wretched creature' (Brh. 3.18.10) ; "Those worlds are said to be sunless, surrounded by blind darkness. To them they go, after death, whosoever are destroyers of the self.' (Ida. 3) and so on. 2 Anticipating the question: By whom (is this enquiry to be undertaken) ? (we reply) : By one, who has grown indifferent to the fruits of works and so on because of those reasons (stated above) ; who, on hearing that the direct vision of the Lord is the special cause of salvation, has come to be seized with a strong inclination to have such a direct vision, which inclination is generated by proper discrimination, itself generated through it (viz. hearing) ; who is desirous of the grace of the Highest Person alone ; who looks uport the spiritual preceptor as the only God ; who has approached the spiritual teacher ; who has whole- hearted devotion for the spiritual teacher ; and who is desirous of final 1 I.e. When the impossible will be possible, the sense being that the knowledge of Brahman is the only means of putting an end to miseries . 8 That is, the enquiry into Brahman is to be undertaken because of three reasons, viz. : (1) because the fruits of works are not lasting and unsurpassed, (2) because the knowledge of Brahman leads to infinite bliss, i.e. salvation, and (3) because those who do not know Brahman, their self, are oensured as worthless creatures. The word "atah" (=therefore) in the tfttra implies these three reasons. [SO. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 7 release, — such is the construction, — in accordance with the following scriptural passages: viz. 'Having examined the worlds acquired by work, let a Brahmana be indifferent to them' (Mund. 1.2.12), 'When the seer sees the golden-coloured Creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahma, the wise man, having discarded merit and demerit, and stainless, attains supreme identity' (Mund. 3.1.3), 'When he sees the other, the Lord who is propitious and His great- ness, he comes to be freed from sorrow' (Mund. 3.1.2; Svet. 4.7), 'Thinking itself and the Mover as different, then favoured by Him, it goes to immortality' (Svet. 1.6), 'The knot of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved and his works perish, when He, who is high and low, is seen' (Mund. 2.2.8), 'He can be obtained by him alone whom He chooses. To him this self reveals its own form ' (Katha 2.23), ' One who has come to be freed from sorrow sees Him who is without active will and His greatness, through the grace of the Lord ' {(Wet. 3.20), 'For the sake of this knowledge, let him, with fuel in hand, approach the teacher alone, who is versed in Scripture, and devoted to Brahman. To him, who has approached him, whose mind is completely calm, and who is endowed with tranquillity, the wise teacher truly told that knowledge of Brahman, through which he knows the Imperishable, the Person, the True ' (Mund. 1.2.12-13), 'Be one to whom the preceptor is a God' (Tait. 1.11), 'To one who has the highest devotion for the Lord, as for God so for his teacher, to that great-souled one these matters which have been declared become manifest' (6vet. 6.23). The compound " Brahma-jijfiasa " is to be explained as 'The enquiry concerning Brahman 1 1 The genitive case : ' concerning Brahman' 2 expresses the object, in accordance with the rule 'The subject and the object (take the genitive case) when they are used along with a word ending with a krt-affix' (Pan. 2.3.66, SD.K. 623). 8 'The enquiry concerning Brahman' is a compound with the object- genitive,* in accordance with the rule 'The genitive is compounded, when used along with a word ending with the krt-affix (and the compound comes under the category of the Sasthl-tat-purusa) ' (K.V.S. 1317, quoted in SD.K. 703).* 1 Brahmano jijAdad. * Brahmawb- * P. 462, vol. 1. 4 I.e. a genitive denoting an object. * P. 496, vol. 1. [SC. 1. 1. 1. 8 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] Brahman is none but Lord Krsna, the substratum of in- conceivable, infinite, unsurpassed, natural and greatest nature and qualities and so on, omniscient, omnipotent, the Lord of all, the cause of all, without an equal or a superior, all-pervading, and the one topic of all the Vedas, as known from the following scriptural and Smrti passages, viz.: 'He grows and causes to grow, hence He is called the supreme Brahman', ' Who is omniscient, all-knowing' (Mund. 1.1.9; 2.2.7), 'Supreme is his power, declared to be of various kinds, and natural is the operation of his knowledge and strength' (SVet. 6.8), This is the Lord of ah" (Brh. 4.4.22), 'Him, the supreme and great Lord among the lords ; Him, the great God among the gods ' (SVet. 6.7), 'He has no work or organ, nothing is seen to be equal or superior to Him' (IsSvet. 6.8), 'The Lord of matter and soul, the Lord of the attributes' (S>et. 6.16), 'The One God is hidden in all beings, all-pervading, and the inner soul of all beings' (Svet. 6.1.1), 'Krsna alone alone is the Supreme Deity. Let one meditate on Him ' (G.P.T. 1 ), * " I am the source of all, everything originates from me " ' (Gita 10.8), ' " There is nothing else higher than me, Dhanan- jaya "' (Gita 7.7), ' " I alone am to be known through all the Vedas" ' (Gita, 15.15) and so on. (This explains the term " Brahman ".) (Now, the explanation of the term "jijnasa":) Knowledge with regard to Him (viz. such Brahman) alone, i.e. the desire with regard to the knowledge of one so desired (viz. Brahman), — this is the sense. Scripture declares this in the Brhadaranyaka passage: ' 0, the self is to be seen, to be heard, to be thought, to be meditated on' (Brh. 2.4.5; 4.5.6), as well as in the Chandogya passage: 'But the Plenty alone is to be enquired into' (Chand. 7.23.1). In the passage: '0 Maitreyl, the self is to be seen' the suffix 'tavya' has the sense of 'fitness' simply, in accordance with the aphorism 'The suffixes "krt" and "trc" are used in the sense of fitness' (Pan. 3.3.169; SD.K. 2822 a ), because the direct vision of Brahman is not something to be enjoined, 8 it being established to be the intimate and inner means to salvation by the following texts: — 'The knot of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved and his works perish, when the soul, 1 P. 205. « P. 569. 3 That is, the above quotation simply means that the Self (Brahman) is fit or worthy to be seen, and not that the Self should be seen, — no injunction here with regard to seeing. See p. 9, footnote 4. [SO. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDANTA-KArJSTUBHA 9 the Lord 1 is seen' (Mund. 2.2.8), 'Stainless, he attains a supreme identity' (Mund. 3.1.3), 'When he sees his glory, he becomes freed from grief (Mund. 3.1.2; $Vet. 4.7), '"Then knowing me in truth, he forthwith enters into that" ' (GltS 18.65), and so on. Thus, with a view to having an access to 'seeing', 2 — which is known from another text, which consists in a direct vision of the Lord, and which is the unique means to salvation, — it is ' meditation', 8 — which is an intimate and inner means to it (viz. 'seeing'), — that is enjoined here.* By the term 'knowledge', the reverend Badarayana designated, in the aphorisms, the very same thing (viz. meditation), which is a synonym for the words 'contemplation', 'knowledge', 'supreme devotion', 'steadfast remembrance', the rule being that the aphorism and the text indicating the subject-matter (viz. the Upanisad-texts) must both have the same meaning. Now, hero also, the texts denoting the subject-matter are of a greater weight, as they, as the primary object, are authoritative by themselves; and hence, the meaning of the aphorisms is to be interpreted in accordance with them alone, otherwise they cannot stand in a relation of subject-matter and what treats of the subject-matter. 6 In Scripture, ' hearing' a and ' thinking ' 7 are laid down as means to 'meditation', 8 since these two also are indirect means to the attainment of salvation. Thus, having ascer- tained that the Vedanta-texts are concerned with demonstrating the nature, attributes and the rest of the Lord, one approaches a preceptor, who has directly intuited the nature and the rest of Brahman, the object to be worshipped demonstrable by the Vedanta-texts, and learns the meaning of those texts from him who has himself realized 1 Correct reading 'Tasmin dfsfe par&wre', or when he, who is high and low, is seen. Vide Mund. 2.2.8, p. 31 ; C.U., p. 528. * S'ravana. * Nididhydsana. * That is, in the above text (Brh.), the Lord is not enjoined to be seen but to be meditated on, meditation leading to seeing or direct vision which is the immediate cause of salvation. * That is, the Vedanta-sutras lay down what is contained in the Upanifads. Hence the Vedanta-sutras are the visayin or what treat of the subject-matter, and the Upanisad-texts are the visaya, or the subject treated. Now, the visayin and the visaya must, evidently, refer to the same thing. And here, the visaya being of a greater force, the visayin must be understood in accordance with the visaya, or the s&tras are to be understood in the light of the Upanisads. Hence as the latter enjoin meditation, the former must also do so. 6 Sravaqa- » Manana. 8 Nididhydsana. [80. 1. 1. 1. 10 VEDlNTA-KAUSTtJBHA ADH. 1.] that meaning directly. This is 'hearing'. 1 'Thinking' is a kind of reflection, by means of arguments which are in conformity with Scripture, with a view to making the meaning of what has been * heard ' and taught, the object of one's own realization. 2 ' Meditating ' means a ceaseless contemplation on the object of 'thinking', which {contemplation) is the unique cause of a direct vision (of the Lord). Accordingly, this (viz. the above Brhadaranyaka-text) is an apurva- vidhi 3 concerning 'meditation', since (salvation is) absolutely unobtainable (without meditation). 4 The explanation of the (above-quoted Chandogya) text 'The Plenty', etc., may be seen under the explanation of the aphorism 'The Plenty ', etc. (Br. Su. 1.3.7). The resulting meaning is that salvation can be obtained by an individual, eternally fettered, and desiring for salvation, who was, by chance, looked upon (with favour) by Madhusudana at the time of his birth, 5 who has practised the group of means (to salvation), who has worshipped the feet of his preceptor, and who has a direct vision of Brahman, obtained through the hearing of, thinking upon and meditating on Him, knowable through the Vedanta. 1 That is, a man first ascertains that the Feddrafo-texte demonstrate the Lord, and then approaches a teacher and learns the meaning of those texts from him. 8 That is, for realizing directly for himself what he has so far accepted on the authority of his preceptor. 3 An ' ap&rva-vidhi ' is a vidhi which enjoins something that is absolutely necessary and indispensable for the production of the desired result, e.g. when it is enjoined : 'The rice-grains are to be sprinkled over with water', it is meant that without this sprinkling, the desired result, viz. the saniakdra of these rice- grains or making them fit for being used in a sacrifice cannot be attained by any other means. Hence, here the vidhi with regard to the sprinkling is an 'apiirva- vidhi'. In the very same manner, the above Bfhodwraiyyaka text : 'The self should be seen, be heard, be thought, be meditated on', lays down an 'apurva- vidhi 1 regarding meditation, since without meditation, the desired result, viz. salvation, cannot be attained by any other means. For the different kinds of vidhis— viz. apurva, niyama and pari-sarrikhyd t see V.R.M., pp. 41-43. * This finishes the explanation of the Bj-haddranyaka text 'O friend, the self should be seen', etc. 6 Vide V.R.M., p. 133 ; also p. 142, where it is said that only one man in a thousand is looked at with favour by Madhusudana at the time of his birth, and that not by chance, but because of the merits accumulated through thousands of previous births. [stJ. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VBDlNTA-KAtTSTtTBHA 11 Salvation means attaining the nature of the Lord, resulting from the cessation of the bondage of matter in its causal 1 and effected forms, 2 as known from the scriptural text: 'Having attained the form of supreme light, he is completed in his own form" (Chand. 8.3.4 ; 8.12.2, 3); as well as from the aphorisms: 'Because release is taught of him who takes his stand upon it' (Br. Su. 1.1.7), 'And (Scripture) teaches in it th' union of this with that' (Br. Su. 1.1.20) and so on; and from the Smrti passage, viz.: 'The attainment of the Lord, characterized by a feeling of unsurpassed joy and happiness, exclusive and absolute, is supposed to be an antidote (to the disease of transmigratory existence)', ' "Many people, purified by the penance of knowledge have come to attain my nature'" (Gita 4.10) and so on. The word 'nature' 8 has been explained by the Lord Himself in the passage ' "Resorting to this knowledge, they have come to have similarity with me" ' (Gita 14.2). This we shall expound more clearly in the chapter dealing with the fruit. 4 Then, in answer to the enquiry : — Of what nature is the individual, desiring salvation ? Of what nature is his bondage ? — the scriptural truth is being considered now, in' order that those who desire for salvation may have an easy access to Scripture. Now, there are three kinds of reality, distinguished as the sentient, the non-sentient and Brahman, because in the aphorisms as well, a trinity of reals has been mentioned, viz. the object to be enquired into (i.e. Brahman), the enquirer (i.e. the sentient), and maya (i.e. the non-sentient) which consists in the three gunas and is the original cause of his (viz. the enquirer's) nescience, as otherwise the very enquiry will be impossible; and also because of the following scriptural and Smrti texts, viz. 'By knowing the enjoyer, the object enjoyed and the Mover, everything has been said. This is the three-fold Brahman' (Svet. 1.21). 'Perishable are all beings, the changeless is called the Imperishable' (Gita 15.16), ' But the Highest Person is another, declared to be the supreme self' (Gita 15.17) and so on. Among these, the sentient substance is different from the class of non-sentient substances; is of the nature of knowledge; possessed of the attributes of being a knower, being an agent and so on; of the 1 I.e. pradhana, the primal matter. 8 I.e. the body, an effect of pradhana. 8 BhSm - * Viz. the fourth chapter. [SC. 1. 1. 1. 12 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] form of an Ego; has its very nature, existence and activity under the control of the Lord; is atomic in size; different in every body; and subject to bondage and release. As has been said: 'The individual soul is of the nature of knowledge, under the control of the Lord, fit to be associated with and dissociated from a body, atomic, different in every body, possessed of the quality of being a knower and that which they call, endless. But through the grace of the Lord, verily they know it, the form of which is associated with beginningless Maya,. 1 The (ever-) free, the bound and the bound-freed, 2 (such are the three broad classes of souls) ; and then again it should be known that there is a multitude of divisions (of these, viz. the ever-free, etc.)'. (DA 1-2). 3 There are scriptural and Smrti texts, as well as aphorisms to this effect, viz.: 'Verily, different from this (soul) consisting of the mind is another internal soul, consisting of intelligence' (Tait. 2.4), 'Just as a lump of salt is without an inside and an outside, and is entirely a mass of savour simply, so, verily, ! this self is without an inside or an outside, and is entirely a mass of intelligence simply' (Brh. 4.5.13), 'Here this person becomes self-illuminating ' (Brh. 4.3.9.14), 'O I undecaying, verily, is this self, possessing indestructible- ness as its attribute' (Brh. 4.5.14), 'Now he who knows: "Let me smell this", which self is he?' 'This person who among the senses is made of knowledge, who is the light within the heart' (Brh. 4.3.7). 'This, verily, is the person of the essence of intelligence who sees, . . . . hears, tastes, smells, thinks and knows ' (Prasna 4.9) , 4 "There is, verily, no cessation of the seeing of the seer, because it (i.e. the soul) is indestructible ; there is, verily, no cessation of the hearing of the hearer, because it is indestructible; there is, verily, no cessation of the thinking of the thinker, because it is indestructible ; there is, verily, no cessation of the knowing of the knower, because it is indestructible ' (Brh. 4.3.23), ' " By whom, O ! should the knower be known?"' (Brh. 2.4.14; 4.5.15), 'This person simply knows', 'The seer does not see death, nor disease, nor, again, suffering' 1 That is, the real nature of the soul is distorted through its connection with mdyd or matter and karma, yet individuals can know the real nature of their selves through the grace of the Lord. See V.R.M., pp. 20-21. 8 That is, the souls which were bound once, but are freed now. 3 For details, see V.R.M. 4 Quotation incomplete. The correct quotation is ' who sees, touches, hears, smells, tastes, thinks, knows and acts'. Vide Prasna 4.9, pp. 41-42. [80. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 13 (Chand. 7. 26. 2). 'He is the best person, . . . not remembering this appendage of the body ' (Chand. 8.12.3), ' So exactly do the seer's sixteen parts, going to the Person, on attaining the Person, merge in (Him) ' (Prasna 6.5), ' "Just as the one sun manifests the entire world, so Bharata, does the owner of the field (viz. the indivi- dual soul) manifest the whole field (viz. the body)"' (Gita 13.34), 'A knower, for that very reason' (Br. Su. 2.3.19), 'An agent, on account of scripture having a sense (Br. Su. 2.3.32). 1 ' I am thou, verily, Deity I he is I, I am Brahman, thus I bow down to the Death of death', 'He shining alone, everything shines after him; through his light all this shines' (Katha 2.2.15), 'He alone makes him, whom he wishes to lead upwards from these worlds, do good deeds. He alone makes him, whom he wishes to lead downwards from these worlds, do evil deeds ' (Kaus. 3.8), ' Whether He may make him do good or evil, not even thereby is the Lord in fault ', ' The individual soul is small in power, not independent and insignificant'; 2 'Atomic, verily, is this soul. These two, merit and demerit, bind it', 'The individual soul should be known as the hundredth part of the tip of a hair, divided a hundredfold, yet it is capable of infinity' (Svet. 5.9), ' Verily, (the soul) is perceived to be like the tip of the spoke of a wheel only, and insignificant, through its quality of buddhi, and through its own attributes ' (Svet. 5.8), ' (There is the mention, of departing, going and returning' (Br. Su. 2.3.19), 'If it be said, not atomic, because Scripture declares what is not that, (we reply:) no, because the topic is something else' (Br. Su. 2.3.21), ' That designa- tion is on account of having that quality for its essence, as in the case of the Intelligent soul' (Br. Su. 2.3.28); 3 'The Eternal among the eternal, the Conscious among the conscious, the One among the many, who bestows objects of desire' (Katha 5.13), 'A part, on account of the designation of a plurality ' (Br. Su. 2.3.42), 4 'There is indeed another different soul, called the elemental soul, — 1 These texts and aphorisms set forth the essential nature of the individual soul, viz. that it is knowledge by nature, a knower, an agent and an enjoyer. * These texts also set forth the essential nature of the soul, viz. itB dependence on the Lord for its activity and its non-difference from Him in that sense. 3 These texts and autraa set forth the size of the soul, viz. its atomicity. * These texts and aphorisms set forth the number of the souls, viz. that there is a plurality of souls. [80. 1. 1. 1. 14 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] he who being overcome by the white or dark fruits of works, attains a good or bad birth. . . . Because of being deluded, he does not see the Lord, the causer of action and dwelling within the self. He is borne along and defiled by the properties of matter' (Maitrl. 3.2) , l 'An unborn one, verily, lies by, enjoying. Another unborn one discards her, who has been enjoyed ' (&vet. 4.15), ' Stainless, he attains a supreme identity' (Mund. 3.1.3), 'He does not return again' (K.B. 2), 'Non-return, on account of scriptural texts' (Br. Su. 4.4.22) 2 and so on. The non-sentient substance is of three kinds, viz* what is derived from matter, what is not derived from matter and time. 8 As has been said: — 'What is derived from matter, what is not derived from matter and time, — these are held to be the non -sentient. (The second is) denotable by the term 'maya', 'pradhana' and the rest, and there are distinctions of white and the rest in it, although it is the same ' (D.S. 3.). Among these, the substance which is the substratum of the three gunas is the prakrta. It is eternal as well as subject to changes like transformation and so on, as declared by the following scriptural texts: — 'A cow she is white, black and red, without beginning and end, 4 the progenitress, and the source of all beings, milking all wishes for the Lord' (Cul. 5), ' There is an unborn one red, white and black, producing many progeny of the same nature' (SVet. 4.5) and so on; by the Smrti passages, viz. : ' This, consisting of the three gunas, is the source of the world and is without beginning and end' (V.P. 1.2.21a), 6 ' Non-sentient, for the sake of another, ever-changing, consisting of the three gunas, the field of works — such is said to be the form of prakrti' and so on; as well as by the following aphorisms: 'It has a sense, on account of its subordination to Him' (Br. Su. 1.4.3), 'As in the case of the sacrificial ladle, for want of any specifi- cation' (Br. Su. 1.4.8), 'But that which has light for its cause, because thus, in fact, some read' (Br. Su. 1.4.9) and so on. The 1 Quotation incorrect. Vide Maitri., pp. 309, 371. Correct quotation translated. * These texts and aphorisms set forth the liability of the souls to bondage and release. 3 Prakfta, apr&krta and kala. * Correct reading 'an&da-vatl' or without sound. For correct quotation, vide Cul. 5, p. 230. * P. 14. [SO. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VBDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 1& gunas are sattva, rajas and tamas. That very prakrti, being trans- formed, through its own gunas, into the body, the sense-organs, the mind and intelligence of the individual souls, and through being a hindrance to salvation, is said to be the cause of the bondage of the individual soul. It is the cause of the universe, beginning with the mahat and ending with the cosmic egg, and its products are to be known as non-permanent. • Next, the aprakrta is a non-sentient substance, absolutely different from prakrti consisting of three gunas and time, occupies a region different from the sphere of prakrti, and is denoted by the terms 'eternal manifestation', 'the region of Visnu', 'the supreme void', 'the supreme place', 'the world of Brahman' and so on, as declared by the following scriptural texts and aphorisms: — ' Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness' (6vet. 3.8; Gita 8.9), 'He who is its Master in the supreme void', 'That supreme region of Visnu the wise see always' (Nr. Pur. 5.10; Skanda 15; Mukti 2.77; Vasu 4), 'But the man whose charioteer is intelligence, and the mind, the reins, attains the end of the road, the supreme place of Visnu' (Katha 3.9), 'Having obtained the soul, I become united with the uncreated world of Brah- man' (Chand. 8.13.1), 'He does not return again' (K.R. 2), 'Non- return, on account of scriptural texts' (Br. Su. 4.4.22) and so on; as well as by the following verses in the Maha-bharata — viz.: 'Whom tbey call prakrti, the eternal, because He is the original source of all beings — the Divinity, without beginning and end, the Lord Nara- yana, Hari. His supreme place is manifested beyond the abode of Brahma. That celestial, luminous place which the gods do not see, more brilliant than the sun and fire, is the place of Visnu the Great,, and through its own rays, O king ! it is difficult to be seen by gods and demons. The ascetics endowed with penance, infused with aus- picious deeds, perfected by Yoga, great-souled, and devoid of ignorance and delusion, go there to Lord Narayana, Hari, the adorable. Having gone there, they do not, Bharata, return to this world again. This place is, O king, eternal and undecaying, for this, Yudhisthira, is always the proof of the Lord. Higher than the seat of Brahma is that supreme place of Visnu. which some people who are endowed with knowledge and intelligence, and want to reach the supreme place, know to be pure, eternal, luminous and the supreme Brahman. That place is immensely holy, full of holy families, going where men do not grieve, do not return, do not feel pain. But those Sattvatas attain. [80. 1. 1. 1. 16 VEDANTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] here the place of Brahman'. The same thing is found in the Glta. Compare, e.g. the statement by the Lord, viz.: ' "Through His grace, 1 you shall obtain supreme peace and an eternal place" ' (Glta 18.62). And through the beginningless desire of the Lord, it is manifold in forms, as the objects of His enjoyment and of His ever-free souls, and not liable to any alternations of evolution and the rest; since it is beyond time, in accordance with the text: 'That manifestation, of which time, composed of Kalas 2 and minutes, is not the cause of transformation. Your eight-fold attributes and lordship, Lord, are natural and supreme'. Next, time is a species of non-sentient sub- stance, different from both the prakrta and the aprakrta, eternal and all-pervading, in accordance with the scriptural text; 'Now, eternal, verily, are the soul, matter and time'; and also because in the text: '"Existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning" ' (Chand. 6.2.1), the existence of time, denoted by the term 'beginning', is declared; as well as on account of the Smrti passage: — 'The Lord Time is beginningless, and has, Brahmin, no end ' (V.P. 1.2.26a 3 ). 'There can be no apprehension in the world which does not involve time.' It is the special cause of the conventional uses (of such terms) as 'past', 'future', 'present', 'simultaneous', 'lasting', 'quick' and so on; assisting in the creation and the rest; and the special cause of the con- ventional use (of different measures of time), beginning with the paramanu and ending with the parardha. 4 Since it is well-known from the Puranas, no detailed account is given here. All objects derived from prakrti are dependent on time. But although time is the regulator of everything, it is itself regulated by the Supreme Lord, in accordance with the text: 'Who is a knower, the Time of time, possessor of attributes, omniscient ' (Svet. 6.2). The meaning of the word " Brahman " has already been expounded above. He is Lord Krsna, an abode of groups of qualities like Creator- ship of the world and the rest, to be mentioned hereafter, and is denoted by the words'Supreme Brahman ', ' Na.ra.yana', 'Vasudeva' and so on. As has been said: 'Let us meditate on Krsna, on Hari, with eyes like 1 Correct quotation ' tat-praaadat' and not 'mat-prataddt'. * KalS is a particular division of time. M.W., p. 261. » P. 15. * A paramfirM is the time taken by the sun to traverse past an atom of matter and so on. Vide V.K.M., p. 38, for details. [30. 1. 1. 1. A DH. 1.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 17 lotus, on Brahman, supreme and adorable, free by nature from all faults, and one mass of infinite auspicious qualities, and having the vyfihas * as His limbs' (D.6. 4). The mutual differences among these (three) substances, viz. the sentient, the non-sentient and Brahman are taught by the texts contained respectively in the different chapters (treating of these three) and indicating the respective peculiarities of their qualities and nature. The non-difference of the sentient and the non-sentient is taught in the following texts: — '"Existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second" ' (Chand. 6.2.1), 'The self, verily, was this in the beginning, one only' (Ait. 1.1.1), 'Thou art that' (Chand. 6.8.7; 6.9.8; 6.10.3; 6.11.3; 6.12.31; 6.13.3; 6.14.3; 6.15.3; 6.16.3), 'This soul is Brahman' (Brh. 4.4.5), 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chand. 3.14.1), 'I am you, verily, O reverend Deity', 'Then he knows the self alone: "I am Brahman"'. In this way, the two kinds of texts being both authoritative in their primary and literal import, the sentient and the non-sentient, though of different natures (from Brahman), yet are non-different from Brahman, because they have their existence and activity under His control, — just as the sense-organs, though of different natures (from the vital-breath) are yet non-different from the vital-breath, because they are under its control, as is well-known from the dialogue between the vital-breath and the sense-organs in the Chandogya: 'Verily, they are not called speech, eyes, or mind, but called the vital- breath alone' (Chand. 5.1.15). Hence the view of the author of the aphorisms is that Brahman, the object to be enquired into, is both different and non -different from the sentient and the non-sentient. For that very reason, there is no necessity for enquiring into the two realities (viz. the sentient and the non-sentient), and the doctrine that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all 2 fits in well. As has been said: 'Hence, all knowledge concerning all objects is true, since they, as declared by Scripture and Smrti, have Brahman 1 The vyuhas are Vasudeva, Samkarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Vide V.R.M., pp. 47-49, for details. * Vide Chand. 6.1 ff. The sense is that the sutras recommend an enquiry into Brahman alone, and not into the sentient and the non-sentient, not because these two ate unreal, but simply because by enquiring into Brahman, the Cause, we oome to know of the sentient and the non-sentient too, the effects, and hence no separate enquiry is necessary. 2 [St*. 1. 1. 1. 18 VEDANTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] for their essence, — this is the view of those who are versed in the Vedas, and the Trinity of Reals too is established by Scripture and aphorisms ' (D.6.7). The following aphorisms may be referred to: 'A part, on account of the mention of variety, and otherwise, some even read the status of a fisherman, a knave and so on' (Br. Su. 2.3.42), 'But on account of the mention of both, as in the case of a snake and its coil' (Br. Su. 3.2.27), 'Or, like the substratum of light, because of being light' (Br. Su. 3.2.28) and so on. Detailed explanations may be seen further on. Since this aphorism (Br. Su. 1.1.1), ascertaining the meaning of Scripture, is of the nature of an introduction, the indispensable factors (in the study of a particular subject) are also mentioned virtually by it, with a view to encouraging people with insight to (the study of) Scripture. These aro: the person entitled (to the study), the topic, the relation and the purpose. 1 Among these, one who is desirous of release and possessed of the stated marks 2 is the person entitled (to the study of the Vedanta). The topic is the Lord Vasudeva, the Highest Person, denoted by the term 'Brahman' and the rest, omnis- cient, the substratum of natural, inconceivable and infinite attributes and powers persisting as long as He Himself does, the Controller of Brahma, Budra, Indra, matter, atoms, time, karma, and Nature, who is absolutely untouched by faults and who is the substratum of a natural difference — non-difference from the sentient and the non- sentient. The relation is that between a topic and what treats of the topic. 8 The purpose here is salvation, characterized by attaining the state of the Lord. Here ends the section entitled 'The enquiry' (1). Comparison of Nimbdrka's reading and interpretation with the readings and interpretations of fearnkara, Rdmanuja, Bhaekara, ferikaniha and Baladeva. 4 Sarnkara Interpretation different. According to Nimbarka, the term " atha " (=then) signifies: 'after the study of the Veda and the Pfirva- 1 Adhikarin, visaya, sambandha, prayojana. * See above, pp. 1 1-14. 3 See above, p. 9 of the book and footnote S there. * Only the points of differences will be noted. [SO. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTCBHA 19 mimamsa*. But according to Samkara, this is not the case. He points out that the study of the Purva-miniamsa is by no means an essential pre-requisite to the study of Brahman. 1 There is no essential connection between the enquiry into religious duties and that into Brahman. On the contrary, there is an absolute difference between them as regards the result and the object of enquiry. 2 The result of the former is the attainment of worldly and heavenly enjoyment, which is something to be accomplished ; while the result of the latter is salvation, which is not something to be accomplished, being eternal and ever-accomplished. This being so, the essential pre-requisite to the enquiry into Brahman is not the enquiry into religious duties, but the acquisition of the four qualifications 3 , — viz. (1) discrimination between eternal and non-etornal objects, (2) aversion to the enjoyment of the objects of sense, here or hereafter, (3) possession of self-restraint, tranquillity and the rest * and (4) the desire of emancipation. 6 Ramanuja Reading and interpretation same, only much more elaborate. Ramanuja points out that the two Mimamsas— viz. the Karma- mlmamsa and the Brahma-mimamsa constitute one connected whole, the first naturally leading to the second, 6 and criticises at length, in this connection, the Samkarite view that the enquiry into Brahman does not necessarily presuppose the enquiry into religious duties. 7 Bhaskara Literal interpretation same, but import different. Bhaskara develops here his peculiar doctrine of jnana-karma-samuccaya, or 1 S.B. 1.1.1. ' Dharma-jijUdsdydh prog api adhita-Veddntasya Brahma- jijfiasopapatteh ', p . 71. 2 £.B. 1.1.1. ' Dharma-brahma-jijAasayoh phala-jijftdsya-bheddcca' (p. 74). 3 Sddhana-catuffaya. 4 I.e. iama (control of the internal organ, viz. the mind), dama (control of the external . sense-organs), uparati (indifference to worldly pursuits), titiksa (endurance of the opposite extremes, like heat and cold, pleasure and pain, etc.), iraddhd (faith in the scripture and the spiritual teachers), and samadhana (deep concentration). 6 3.B. 1.1.1. 'Nity&nitya-vastu-vivekah, ihdmutrdrtha-phalabhoga-virdgah, dama-damadisadhana-mmpal, mumukftttvaA ca'. 6 £rl. B. 1.1.1. 'Vatyyati ca Karma-brahma-mimdmeayor aikateslryam', etc., p. 2, vol. 1 (Madras ed.). T Op. cit., pp. 6-13, vol. 1. [SO. 1. 1. 1. 20 VEDiNTA-KAtTSTUBHA ADH. 1.] combination of knowledge and work. Thus, according to both Nimb&rka and Bhaskara, the enquiry into Brahman should be under- taken after an enquiry into religious duties, but for different reasons. According to Nimbarka, the prior study of the Karma-mimamsa convinces us of the transitory nature of the fruits of karmas, and this naturally leads us to the study of the Brahma-mlmamsa, with a view to attaining a permanent fruit therefrom, viz. salvation. For this reason, we study first the Purva-mimamsa, and then the Uttara- mimamsa or the Vedanta. But according to Bhaskara, we enquire into Karmas before enquiring into Brahman for quite different reasons, viz. (1) We do not enquire into Karmas first and then into Brahman, because the former are transitory, the latter not; but we enquire into both Karmas and Brahman, for the very same reason, viz. because we know that they both play an equal part in the attainment of salvation. Salvation can be obtained through a proper combination of knowledge and works, and unless -we first know the nature of the works themselves, we cannot possibly decide which kinds of works are to be resorted to and combined with knowledge, and which kinds to be avoided and not to be so com- bined. It is for this reason, that we first study the Karma-mimamsa, and then the Brahma-mlmamsa, and combine the obligatory works with knowledge, avoiding those that are undertaken for selfish ends. (2) Further, the Vedanta deals with various kinds of meditations on the subordinate parts of sacrifices — , e.g. the meditation on the udgltha and so on. But unless we are first acquainted with the nature of those sacrifices themselves, such meditations are not possible. It is for this reason also that we first study the Karma-mimamsa, and then the Brahma-mlmamsa. 1 Bhaskara also criticises here the Samkarite interpretation of the term " atha ".* Srikantha Literal interpretation same, but import different. That is, Nimbarka and Srikantha both agree that the Brahma-mlmamsa is to be studied after the study of the Karma-mimamsa, but the reason for this, as given by Srikantha, is different from that given by Nim- barka. We have already seen the reason given by Nimbarka. But * Bh. B. Ill, p. 2. a Op. cit., pp. 3-5. [sC. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDANTA-KAUSTUBHA 21 according to Srikantha, we must first study religious duties and then Brahman, because the two stand in a relation of worship (aradhana) and the worshipped (aradhya), 1 cause (hetu) and effect, 2 means (sadhana) and end (sadhya) 8 . The proper performance of Karmas purifies the mind. But unless we first know the nature, etc. of Karmas, we cannot perform them .properly, i.e. choose the right ones (nitya and naimittaka ones) and avoid others (kamya ones), and unless we perform karmas properly, our mind is not purified, and unless our mind is purified, there can be no rise of knowledge in it. It is for this reason that we should first study the Karma -mimamsa and then the Brahma-mimamsa. 4 Like Ramanuja, Srikantha holds that the Karma-mlmamsa and the Brahma-mimamsa form one and the same treatise. 5 Baladeva Interpretation different. According to Baladeva also, the word " atha" means ' immediate sequence', but he points out that it cannot be said that the study of the Karma-mlmamsa is an essential pre- requisite to the study of the Brahma-mimamsa, for it is often found that even one who knows the Karma-mlmamsa by heart, but who is deprived of the company of the good, has no desire to enquire into Brahman, while one who does not know the Karma-mlmamsa, but is purified by truthfulness, prayer, etc. and associates with the good, has a natural inclination to enquire into Brahman. It cannot be said also that the term " atha " means that the enquiry into Brahman can be undertaken only after the acquisition of the four-fold qualifica- tions, viz. discrimination between the eternal and the non-eternal and the rest, as held by 6&mkara, for these cannot be acquired unless one first associates with the good and the holy. 8 Hence, what the term " atha " means is as follows: — A man who has properly studied the Veda and has understood its meaning in a general way, who has faithfully performed the duties incumbent on » !§K.B. 1.1. 1, p. 34, Part 1. 2 Op. tit., pp. 37, 39, Part 1. 3 Op. tit., pp. 39, 43, Part 1. * SK.B. 1,1,1, pp. 33, 39, 43, 50, 68, 70, Part 1. Of course SHkapfha is not a Jftana-karma-aamuecaya-vadin like Bhaskara. s $K.B. 1.1.1, p. 33, Part 1. 4 G.B. 1.1.1, pp. 24-25, chap. 1. [SO. 1. 1. 2. 22 vedanta-parijata-saurabha adh. 2.] his own stage of life, who is truthful and bo on, whose mind has become purified by the performance of duties in a disinterested spirit and who has come into contact with a knower of truth, should then commence an enquiry into Brahman, for then he is convinced that the fruits of works undertaken with selfish ends in view are but transitory, while Brahman alone is the cause of eternal happiness. 1 Thus, the five pre-requisites to the enquiry into Brahman are: — (1) Study of the Veda. (2) Proper performance of the duties incum- bent on one's own stage of life. (3) Purification of the mind by such performance of works in a disinterested spirit. (4) Association with the good and the holy. (5) The consequent acquirement of the faculty of discriminating between the permanent and the non-permanent, disgust for non-permanent worldly objects and desire to know the permanent in details. All the commentators agree in holding that the word " atah" means 'because the fruits of Karmas are transitory, while the know- ledge of Brahman alone leads to eternal bliss'. Adhikarana 2: The section entitled 'The Origin'. (S u t r a 2) SOTRA 2 " (Brahman is that) from whom (arise) the origin and the rest of this (world)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha Now, with regard to the characteristics of Brahman, the author states the correct conclusion: That very Lord — the substratum of infinite attributes like omniscience, etc. and the ruler of Brahma, Siva time and the rest, — from whom arise the origination, subsistence and dissolution " of this ", i.e. of the universe, — endowed with manifold combinations, the abode of innumerable peculiarities of names and forms and the like; and the form of which is inconceivable, — is Brahman, the object of the above statement (viz. Su. 1.1.1) — this is the meaning of the characterizing text. 1 Op. eit., pp. 19-20, chap. 1. [SO. 1. 1. 2. ADH. 2.] VEDlNTA-KATTSTUBHA 23 Vedanta -kaustubha Brahman, called Lord Krsna, great in qualities, powers and nature, has been established in the previous section. Now, with reference to the enquiry: What are His characteristics? — the same Being (viz. Brahman) is being demonstrated, as having the qualities of ' being the agent of the origin and the rest of the world ', 'being omniscient', 'being true ' and so on. Here the words "of this" denote the effect, viz. the world; and the words "from whom" denote the cause. The word 'Brahman' is to be supplied here from the previous aphorism. And, there being an universal correlation between the terms 'yat' and 'tat', the term 'tat' too must be supplied here. 1 (Next the compound "janmadi" is explained: — ) 'That of which "origin" is the beginning' — is "janmadi", i.e. creation, sub- sistence, dissolution and salvation. This is a Bahuvrihi compound of the tad-guna-samjfiana type. 2 That "from whom", — i.e. the Lord, tho Highest Person, the Lord of all, omniscient, omnipotent, the supreme cause and the ruler of all, — arise tho origination, subsistence, dissolution, and salvation " of this ", i.e. of the world, which is manifested by names and forms connected with enjoyers (viz. the souls) divided variously ; which is the constant abode of the enjoying of place, time and fruits; and the composition of which is beyond the grasp of reasoning — is Brahman. He alone is to be enquired into by those who desire for salvation, — this is the construction of the words in the aphorism. 1 Thus the construction of the antra is: — 'Janmady asya yatah Brahmanah tatah'. * There are two kinds of Bahuvrihi, viz. tad-guna-samjASna and atad-guna- aamjil&na. In the former case, the compounds, the noun (viieaya) has direct connection with and implies the words compounded (viiesanas), e.g. when it is said 'Bring the man with long ears ' (Lamba-karnam anaya), the bringing of the man implies the bringing of his attribute, viz. the ears, as well and the man (viieqya) and his ears (viiesanas) are directly connected. In the latter case, there is no such direct connection between the compound and the words compounded, e.g. when it is said 'Bring the man who has seen the sea' {Dftfa-sagaram anaya), the bringing of the man does not imply the bringing of his attribute, viz. the sea, and there is no direct connection between the two. Now, 'Janmadi' is a Bahuvrihi of the first kind and hence it includes in its meaning 'janma ' too. [stJ. 1. 1. 2. 24 VEDANTA-KAT/STUBHA ADH. 2.] There are scriptural texts to this effect, — beginning: — 'Bhrgu, the son of Varuna approached his father, (with the request) "Sir, teach me Brahman" ' (Tait. 3.1), and continuing: — ' "From, whom, verily, all these beings arise, by whom they, so born, live and to whom they go forth and enter, — enquire into that, that is Brahman"' (Tait. 3.1), 'Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite' (Tait. 2.1) and so on. (The meaning of the first of the above two texts is: — ) 'From whom', i.e. from Lord Purusottama, 'all these beings', i.e. all objects from the mahat down to a tuft of grass, 'arise', — hereby the origination (of the world from the Lord) is indicated. ' By whom, they, so born, live', — hereby the subsistence (of the world in Brahman) is indicated. ' They enter', — hereby the dissolution (of the world into the Lord) is shown. 'To whom they go forth,' — meaning — 'whom they attain after the destruction of all karmas', — hereby salvation (of the souls) is indicated. Here 'origination' means the expansion of the manifold consciousness of the sentient being, due to its connec- tion with a body and the rest; and 'dissolution' means its entrance into the Cause (viz. Brahman), resulting from the contraction of its consciousness. This will be made clear under the explanations of the two aphorisms, viz. 'Dependent on the movable and the immovable' (Br. Su. 2.3.16) and so on. The distinction (between the sentient and the non-sentient) is that the non-sentient is more primary, having a different form at the beginning of creation. 1 The meaning of the second text, on the other hand, is that Brahman possesses the attributes of truth, knowledge and infinitude. Here, the word 'truth' distinguishes the Lord from what is not true, the word 'knowledge' from the group of the non-sentient, and the word 'infinite' from the group of the sentient. And, thus it is established that the characteristic mark of Brahman is that He, being the one non -distinct material and efficient cause of the universe, is possessed of truth and the rest. He is the material cause 2 in the sense of being the manjfestor, in a gross form, of His own 1 That is, the non-sentient is more primary than the sentient in the sense that it is prior to the sentient in point of time. Right in the beginning of creation, the individual soul does not exist, in the sense that there is nobody with which it may be connected, but pradhana does, though not in the form of particular non-sentient substances like stones and houses, etc., and the body comes to be evolved later on. Cf. Samkhya theory of evolution. * Updddnatva. [sP. 1. 1. 2. ADH. 2.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 25 natural powers, denoted by the terms 'higher', 'lower' and so on, and reduced to a subtle state; as well as of the effects, existent and inherent in them respectively. He is the efficient cause * in the sense of bringing about a union of the sentient beings, — whose attribute of knowledge is in a state of absolute contraction being under the in- fluence of the past impressions of their own karmas which are begin- ningless, and is, thereby, unfit for bringing about the recollection (in their minds) of the retributive experiences (to be undergone in the present birth), — with their respective karmas, and the respective instruments for experiencing them, through manifesting (in them) knowledge, enabling them to experience the fruits of karmas. 2 There is a Smrti passage too, conformable to the text dealing with the topic in hand, (i.e. the above Taittiriya text, 3.1) in the Moksa-dharma. 3 It begins: 'The Scripture which was mentioned by Bhrgu to Bharadvaja, who asked ' (Maha. 12.6769b 4 ), and con- tinues : ' " He, verily, is the Lord Visnu, celebrated to be infinite, abiding as the inner Soul of all beings, and difficult to be known by those who have not obtained the self, who is the creator of the principle of egoity for the production of all beings, from whom arose the universe, about whom I have been asked by you here " ' (Maha. 12.6784b- 6786a 5). 1 Nimtitatva. 3 The Lord is the material cause of the universe in the sense that creation means the manifestation of His subtle powers of the sentient and the non- sentient into gross effects. That is, during dissolution, the entire universe of the sentient and the non-sentient merges in the Lord and exists in Him in a subtle state as His natural powers. Then, in the beginning of a new creation, the Lord manifests these powers of the sentient and the non-sentient (cit- iakti&nd acit-iakti), developing them into grosser effects and producing, thereby, the universe of names and forms. And the Lord is the efficient cause of the universe in the sense that Ho unites individual souls with their respective karmas, the results of these karmas, and the instruments for experiencing them — that is, the Lord is the efficient cause in the sense that He regulates the destinies of individual souls in accordance with strict justice. During dissolution, the beginningless im- pressions of past karmas get dimmed and confused j and at the time of a new creation, the Lord revives these impressions in particular individuals, thereby making each individual undergo the fruits of his past works. Vide V.B.M., p. 63. 8 ' Moksa-dharma ' is the name of a section of the twelfth book of the Maha-bhSrata, from adhyaya 174 to the end. * P. 604, line 7, vol. 3. * Op. cit., lines 22-24. [sff. 1. 1. 2. 26 VBDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.] If it be objected :-^-In the Svetasvatara Upanisad, a multitude of causes is spoken of in the passage : ' Time, nature, destiny, accident, elements and the Person should be known as the Cause ' (Svet. 1.2), so what authority is there for separating specifically Vasudeva, the Highest Person alone as the cause of the world? — (then we reply:) Listen. A multitude of scriptural and Smrti passages is our authority for specifying the cause of the world. Compare the following: — ' He, the One, who governs all these causes, connected with time and soul ' (Svet. 1.3), ' He who is a knower, the Time of time, possessed of attributes, omniscient ' (Svet. 6.2), ' Of whom there is neither a creator, nor a lord ' (6vet. 6.9), ' Verily, Narayana was One ' (Maha. Up. 1.2), 'Then there was Visnu, Hari alone, without parts', ' From Narayana is born Brahma, from Narayana is born Rudra ' (Nar. 1), ' From the forehead of this being, wrapt up within himself in meditation, was born the Person, with three-eyes, trident in hand ' (Maha. Up. 1.7), ' Krsna, the One, the ruler, moving everywhere, is an object of worship, He who, though one, yet appears as many '. " ' Ka ' is the name of Brahman, I am the ' Isa ', i.e. the Lord, of all beings. We two have sprung up from your body, hence you have the name ' Kesava ' ", ' I, Brahma, the primary Lord of people, am born from Him, and you have sprung up from me ', ' Krsna alone is the source of the worlds, and of their dissolution too ', ' Being created by Krijna the universe consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient has originated '. ' In the Veda, and in Ramayana, verily, in the Bharata and in the Panca-ratra, Hari is celebrated everywhere, in the beginning, in the end, and in the middle ' (Hari V. 16232 *). ' " I am the origin of the entire world, dissolution similarly " ' (Gita 7.6), ' " There is nothing else higher than me, Dhananjaya" ' (Gita 7.7), ' " I am the source of everything, everything originates from me" ' (Gita 10.8) and so on. The terms ' Hiranyagarbha ' and the rest, which we find sometimes in certain texts concerning the origin and so on of the world, should be known to be referring to Brahman. Hence it is established that Lord Krsna, the Soul of all, the Lord of all, the one topic of all the Vedas, is the cause of the world. Here ends the section entitled ' The Origin ' (2). i P. 1002, vol. 4. [SO. 1. 1. 3. ADH. 3.] VEDlNTA-PiRIJATA-SAUBABHA 27 COMPARISON Samkara Beading and interpretation same. Of course, consistently with his doctrine, Samkara must hold that here the term ' Brahman ' denotes 'Isvara' or the lower Brahman. Adhikarana 3: The section entitled 'That which has Scripture for its source'. (Sutra 3) SCTRA 3 " Because (Brahman has) Scripture for His Source." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha With reference to the enquiry : What is the proof of His existence ? The author states the correct conclusion : — Of Whom " Scripture " alone is " the source ", i.e. the cause of knowing, 1 — that very reality, characterized as having the stated marks, is denoted by the term 'Brahman'. Vedanta-kaustubha Thus, it has been pointed out by the aphorism concerning enquiry 2 that Brahman is the object to be enquired into, and it has been pointed out by the aphorism concerning characteristic mark 8 that the characteristic mark of Brahman is to be the cause of the origin and the rest of the world and possess truth, etc. Now, with reference to the enquiry : What is the proof with regard to Him — the proof is being stated. On the doubt, viz. whether Brahman, having the stated marks, is to be arrived at through inference, or has the Veda alone for His proof, — the prima facie view being that He is to be arrived at through inference, since we know from the scriptural text: 'From whom speech turns back' (Tait. 2.4; 2.9) that Brahman cannot be known through speech (i.e. texts), — 1 This explains the compound 'iastra-yoni'. * Viz. Br. Su. 1.1.1. » Viz. Br. Su. 1.1.2. [stT. 1. 1.3. 28 VEDlNTA-KAUSTITBHA ADH. 3.] (We reply:) Brahman cannot be arrived at through inference, but has the Veda for His proof. Why ? " Because (Brahman has) Scripture for His source ". That means: " Scripture ", i.e. the Veda, is the " source ", i.e. the cause, the informant, the proof, with regard to whom, — that object is " fSastra-yoni " ; and " Sastra-yonitva " is the state of being " Sastra-yoni " — on account of that, i.e. on account of having Scripture for His proof. 1 The correct conclusion is that Brahman has the Veda alone for His proof. If it be said : For the sake of simplicity, it is well-said that Brahman has Scripture for His source; and thus to say that Brahman has Scripture for His source, i.e. has the Veda for its proof, serves our purpose, (i.e. is not in conflict with our view), — (we reply:) No, Brahman cannot be arrived at through inference, because the phrase : " Because (He has) Scripture for (His) source " indicates a reason which excludes any other proof except Scripture. If it be said: How is it known that He cannot be arrived at through inference? — (we reply:) There has been some room for the suspicion that Brahman can be arrived at through inference, since the middle term (or the reason), viz. 'the state of being an effect' 2 , stated above, proves the world to be due to a creator. 8 With a view to removing it, that significant word * is used here (in this sutra), in accordance with the following scriptural texts : — Viz. : ' The word which all the Vedas declare' (Katha 2.15), 'That with regard to which all the Vedas become one' (Tait. Ar. 3.11.1 6 ), ' "I ask you about Brahman, set forth in the Upanisads" ' (Brh. 3. 9.26 8 ), ' He who does not know the Veda, does not know Him, the great ' (Tait. Br. 3.12.9.7 7 ) and so on, and the following Smrti passages: ' "By all the Vedas, I alone am to be known" ' (Glta 15.15), " 'In the Veda, in the Ramayana, 1 This explains the compound ' Jdatra-yonitvdt' . 2 Kdryyatva. 3 That is, it has been laid down in SUtra 1.1.2 that the world is an effect. This suggests the inference : — Whatever is an effect has a creator. The world is an effect. .'. the world has a creator (viz. Brahman). This suggestion is negatived by Sutra 1.1.3, which explicitly says that the Brahman has Scripture alone for His proof, and never inference. * Viz. ' 4aatra-yonV '. * P. 19. Beading 'yatraikam'. * Correct reading : 'pfcch&mi'. i P. 292, vol. 3. [s(J. 1. 1. 3. ADH. 3.] VBDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 29 verily, in the Bharata and in the Panca-ratra, Hari is celebrated everywhere, in the beginning, in the end and in the middle' " (Hariv. 16232 *), 'We bow down to that wherein lies the eternal basis of all speech* and so on. If it be said: On the ground of the inference: 'All objects having parts, like the earth and the rest, have a cause, because they are effects, like pots and the rest', Brahman is established to be the cause of the world, since none else can bo such a cause, and this being so, why trouble about the Veda? — (we reply.) no, because, the very fact that the elements like the ether and the rest have an origin being not known by anyone without the Veda, that they are effects is not estab- lished, and hence the reason 2 is itself unestablished. 3 It cannot be said also that the origin of the elements is to be known through the Veda, and the fact that they are effects being proved through this, the reason 4 is not unestablished — , for, in that case too, Brahman, the cause of the world being known through the Veda alone, the inference becomes futile, and you virtually come to our side. Thus, even in the case of well-known effects like a house or a shoot, Brahman cannot be inferred from the reason 'producibleness', it being possible to suppose the earth, the seed, water, men and so on to be their causes; and unreasonable to imagine an unseen cause (viz. Brahman). This should be understood here: wherever something is found to be an effect, there it is possible also to arrive, by means of inference, at an individual soul, corresponding to effect, as the agent. But that the entire universe is an effect is not known without the help of the Veda. Hence, the creator of the world, too, can be known through the Veda alone, and never through a thousand inferences. Further, Brahman cannot be known through the evidence of perception, since the ordinary sense-organs are incapable of grasping Him, as declared * P. 1002. 2 Viz. Karyyatva or state of being an effect. 3 That is, it has been argued : — Whatever is an effect has a cause. The world is an effect. ,". the world has a cause. Now, we cannot know that the world is an effect, unless we have recourse to Soripture, and hence Scripture is needed even here too. * Viz. Karyyatva or producibleness. [SO. 1. 1. 3. 30 VEDlNTA-KAUSTOBHA ADH. 3.] by the scriptural texts: 'Not the sense-organs, nor inference,' ' " This knowledge is not attainable through inference, dearest 1 It leads to proper knowledge only being told by another ' ' * (Katha 2.9). That is, 'Dearest! ' 'this knowledge' concerning Brahman, is not to be overthrown by reason, or, is not capable of being attained thereby. 'Told' by 'another', i.e. by an omniscient teacher who is versed in the Veda, it leads to right knowledge, as declared by the aphorism 'On account of reasoning having no ground' (Br. SQ. 2.1.11); by the Manu Smrti: 'One should not apply reasoning to those conceptions which are verily inconceivable' ; and by the MahS-bharata: 'One should not arrive at those conceptions which are verily inconceivable through reasoning. There can be no ascertainment of any deep meaning through reasoning which is without a basis '. Moreover, who but a mad man should say that Brahman, the cause of the world, who is not known entirely and in every way even by omniscient mantras and sages, who is difficult to be understood and who is possessed of infinite inconceivable qualities and powers, can be known through inference. It is not to be apprehended: what then will become of such texts as: ' From whom speech turns back' (Tait. 2.4 ; 2.9) and so on ? — for the meaning of these is that Brahman is not limited as being so much. This the author will state under the aphorism: 'For the so-muchness of the topic mentioned' and so on (Br. Su. 3.2.22). (An alternative explanation of the sutra:) If the compound " Sastra-yoni" be disjoined as: 'The source of Scripture', then, too, the very same meaning is arrived at. 1 The resulting meaning is that Brahman can be known through the Vedas alone, — breathed forth by Him, the omniscient, and (as such) standing in an intimate and internal relation with Him, — and not through any external inference and the rest, imagined by others. In that case, (i.e. on the second interpretation), the topic of this aphorism will be the scriptural text, viz. 'Breathed forth by this Great Being is the Rg-veda, the Yajur- veda and the Sama-veda' (Brh. 2.4.10 ; Maitri. 6.32). And, on this interpretation, the eternity of the Vedas are not negatived, for what we admit is the issuing forth only (and not new creation) of what is eternally established, in accordance with the following scriptural » Cf. S.B. 1.1.3. [80. 1. 1. 4- ADH. 4.] VEDiNTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 31 and Smrti passages, viz.: 'By means of speech, which is devoid of form and eternal' (Rg. V. 8.75.61; Tait. Sam. 2.6.11.2 2), 'Speech, without beginning and end, eternal, consisting of the Veda and celestial, was created by the Self-born in the beginning, whence proceeded all activities ' (Maha. 12.8534 3 ). Hereby, the eternal and non-derived form of Brahman is indicated, since the Veda, which is prior to all derivative creation, was breathed forth by Him. 4 This we shall explain later on. 5 Hence, it is established that Brahman has the Veda as His sole proof. Here ends the section entitled * That which has Scripture for its source' (3). Adhikarana 4: The section entitlod 'Concord- ance'. (Sutra 4) SCTRA 4 "But that (viz. that Brahman has Scripture as His sole proof) follows from the concordance (of all scriptural texts with regard to brahman)." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha If an objection be raised, viz. : In as much as the entire Veda is concerned with action (i.e. injunctions and prohibitions), the Vedanta- texts too, which are concerned with a different topic, are solely concerned with injunctions by way of establishing the excellence of the agent, who is a part of sacrifices, — just as the artha-vada texts 8 are indirectly unanimous with the injunctive-texts, by way of estab- lishing their excellence. Hence, how can Brahman have Scripture as His sole proof? 7 — the correct conclusion is as follows: i P. 162. 2 P. 241, vol. 1. s P. 666, line 22, vol. 3. 4 That is, if Brahman were to breathe forth the Vedas, He must have a body (nose, etc.), but this body is not evidently composed of matter, but is non-material, since when He breathes forth the Vedas, there is no matter. « See V.K. 1.3.28-30. 6 An artha-vada is the explanation of the meaning of a precept, or eulogism. 7 The sense of the objection is : All Vedas set forth injunctions or prohibitions with regard to action. But besides the texts which directly or explicitly set forth the above, there are in the Vedas some texts which are merely indicative. [SC. 1. 1. 4. 32 VEDiNTA-PAKIJATA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.] 'That', i.e. Brahman alone, the object of enquiry and the cause of the universe, has Scripture for His proof, and not action and the rest, since the entire Veda is in concordance in proving Him alone. (The word) " samanvayat " is to be explained thus: " Sama- nvaya" means concordance in respect of the primary import.-r-on account of that — " samanvayat ". Or else, because there is concord- ance among the Vedas in point of proving Him alone, — so much in brief. It cannot be said that such a concordance exists with regard to actions, since actions fulfil their purpose by simply giving rise to a desire for knowledge. 1 To say that Brahman is a subsidiary factor of sacrifices is a mere childish prattle, since He is an independent Being as the regulator of all works, their agents and so on, and their instruments; and is the giver of fruits. On the contrary, works themselves are in concordance (with regard to Brahman) as assisting indirectly the rise of knowledge — which is a means to attaining Him, — by way of generating a desire for knowledge. 2 This is ascertained from the text concerning the desire for knowledge. 3 If it be objected: It being established in Scripture that Brahman is not an object of the proof, viz. Word, just as He is not an object of the proofs, viz. perception and the rest, — Brahman has not Scripture as His sole proof, — we reply: Brahman, the object of enquiry, has Scripture alone as His proof and not anything else, on account of the concordance of all the scriptural texts, directly or indirectly, with regard to Him alone. Among these, there is a direct concordance among the texts concerning His characteristic marks, proof and the and not injunctive. And, these latter kind of texts are to be explained, not literally, but as eulogising the direct injunctive texts and thereby indirectly forming a part of injunctions, etc., otherwise the integrity of the Vedas cannot be maintained. Hence, the Veddnta -texts too must be taken as not establishing Brahman, but as simply extolling the sacrincer by identifying him with the Supreme Soul and so on, and as such really concerned with sacrificial acts. 1 That is, the proper function of karmaa is simply to purify the mind, and thereby create a desire for knowledge. Karma, thus, is a means and not an end, the way to truth and not truth itself. Hence the Veddnta-texta, dealing as they do, with the Supreme Truth, oannot be concerned with mere karmaa. Vide V.P.S. 3.4.26. 1 I.e. knowledge is not an anga of karma, on the contrary, karma is an anga of knowledge. Vide V.P.S. 3.4.8. * Vii. Brh. 4.4.22. [st. 1. 1. 4. ADH. 4.] VEDAHTA-PARIJATA-SAUHABHA 33 rest, since they are (directly) concerned with Him; and there is an indirect concordance among the texts concerning the S^ndilya-vidya, 1 the Paflc&gni-vidya, 2 the Madhu-vidya 8 and so on, as well as among those which are symbolic in nature.* Or rather, there is a direct concordance alone among all the texts whatsoever, though leading to different procedures, 6 since the topics of all these different texts being equally Brahman in essence, they are all to be understood in their primary and literal sense. 8 It is not to be feared that in that case, the texts which are concerned with the denial of the object (viz. Brahman) will be precluded, 7 since they too, as being concerned with denying any limit with regard to Brahman's nature, attributes and the rest, refer to the very same topic (viz. Brahman). 8 Moreover, we ask your Worship : Do you or do you not mean that Brahman is the object of the statement: 'Brahman is not an object of knowledge ' ? If the first, then Brahman is proved to be describable and hence the proposition that He is not describable is set aside. If the second, then Brahman is describable all the more. Hence, the object of enquiry is Lord Vasudeva alone, omniscient, possessed of all inconceivable powers, the cause of the origin and the Test of the universe, known through the evidence of the Veda alone, different and non-different from all and the soul of all. All Scriptures are in concordance with regard to Him alone — this is the settled conclusion of the followers of the Upanisads (viz. the Vedantins). i Vide Brh. 5.6.1 ; Chand. 3.U.1-4. 2 Vide Chand. 5.5.4-10. Also V.K. 3.1.1. 3 Vide Brh. 2.5.1-19 (whole section); Chand. 3.1-11. * Vide e.g. Brh. 5.7-0, etc.; Chand. 3.18-21; 7.1-12, etc. 6 The sense is that the various kinds of texts may impel a man to different procedures. Some may lead a man to meditate on Brahman directly as the self, others to meditate on Him as the sun and so on. 8 That is, even the texts concerning the various meditations and symbols, are to be understood as directly referring to Brahman, i.e. to be interpreted literally, and not as referring to Brahman indirectly, i.e. to be interpreted figuratively, as suggested before. This modifies the statement made immediately before that some texts are direct and primary, some indirect and secondary, and takes all to be equally direct and primary. 7 Viz. 'Neti, neti' (Brh. 2.3.6) and so on. 8 That is, the view that all texts are concerned with Brahman directly in no way precludes the negative texts, since these negative texts also are concerned with Brahman equally. 3 [stf. 1. 1. 4. 34 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.] Vedlnta-kaustubha Thus, it has been said that Lord Krsna, the substratum of great qualities and powers and the non-distinct material and efficient cause of the world, has the Veda alone for His proof. Now, with a view to confirming it, the author, by showing the concordance of the entire Veda with regard to that very Brahman, refutes the following objection, viz. ; The entire Veda has been associated with action by Jaimini who holds: 'Since Scripture is concerned with action, there is purport- lessness of what does not refer to it (viz. action)' (Pu. Ml. Su. 1.2.1 1 ). Hence, what is not concerned with action being laid down as purport- less, the Vedanta-texts, too, all refer to action (otherwise they will all become purportless). Consequently, how can Brahman have the Veda as His sole proof ? The term "but "disposes of the (above) prima facie view. "That", i.e. Brahman alone, the object of enquiry and the cause of the world, has Soripture for His sole proof. Why? "On account of concord- ance", i.e. because there is concordance among all the Vedas with regard to Him alone. (The word "samanvayat" is to be explained as follows:) "Samanvaya" means: 'Concordance in point of entirety of statement', — on account of that, — "samanvayat", i.e. the entire Veda is in concordance with regard to denoting Brahman entirely or Lord Krsna, the object to be enquired into by one who desires salvation, the one identical material and efficient cause of the world, having Scripture as His source (i.e. proof), the controller of matter, soul, time and works, having His footstool honoured by the crowns (i.e. the bowed heads) of Brahma, Budra, Indra and the rest, having His greatness untouched by any odour of fault, the abode of infinite qualities like omniscience and the rest and to be approached by the freed. The following groups of texts are in concordance with regard to Him alone: — 'From whom verily all these beings arise' (Tait. 3.1), 'From bliss alone, verily, do these beings arise' (Tait. 3.6), 'From Him arise the vital-breath, the mind, and all the sense-organs' (Mund. 2.1.3), '"The existent alone, my child, was this in the beginning, One only, without a second" (Chand. 6.2.1). "He thought: May I be many, may I procreate'" (Chand. 6.2.3), 'From Narayana arises the vital- breath, . . . from Narayana arises Brahma, from i P. 36, vol. l. [stJ. 1. 1. 4. ADH. 4.] VEDANTA-KAUSTUBHA 35 Narayana arises Rudra' (Nar. 1), 'There was verily, Narayana alone, neither Brahma nor Isana (Maha. Up. 1.2), 'Brahman, verily, was this in the beginning, one only' (Brh. 1.4.10.11). 'Brahman, verily, waB this in the beginning; he knew that self alone thus: "I am Brahman'", 'From Him arose all this', 'The self, verily, was this in the beginning, one only' (Ait. 1.1.1), 'From this self, verily, the ether originated' (Tait. 2.1), 'The word which all the Vedas record' (Katha 2.15), 'That, in regard to which all the Vedas are unanimous' (Tait. Ar. 3.11.1 *), 'Entered within, the ruler of man' (Tait. Ar. 3.11.1.2 s ), 'To whom all the gods bow down', 'Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite' (Tait. 2.1), 'Knowing the bliss of Brahman' (Tait. 2.9), 'Brahman is knowledge and bliss' (Brh. 3.9.28), 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chand. 3.14.1), 'The self that is free from sins, without decay, without death, without grief, without hunger, without thirst' (Chand. 8.7.1.3), 'Who is omniscient, all-knowing' (Mund. 1.1.9; 2.2.7), 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tait. 2.1), 'Brahman, verily, is all this' (Brh. 2.5.1-14, 14 times) and so on. (Prima facie view.) An objection may be raised here : — The entire Veda is but a collec- tion of five kinds of texts, called, injunction, prohibition, explanation or eulogy, sacred formulas and name. 3 Of these, 'One, who desires heaven should perform the Jyotistoma 4 sacrifice ' and so on, are injunctive texts. 'A Brahmana should not be killed' and so on, are prohibitive texts. 'The wind, verily, is the quickest deity' (Tait. Sam. 2.1.1 s ), and so on are explanations or eulogisms. 'Oblation to you' (Tait. Sam. 1.1.1 •), '0, heavens, having the fire as your head' (Rg. V. 8.44.16a; 7 Sat. Br. 2.3.4.11a »), and so on are sacred formulae. 'Jyotistoma', 9 'Asva-medha' 10 and the rest are names, — thus we distinguish them. Thus, in the beginning, in the aphorism: 'Then, * P. 19. Beading: 'Yatraika®'- a P. 181. 8 Vidhi, niqedha, artha-vada, mantra, namadheya. * Name of a Soma-saerifice, oonsisting divisions, Agnitfoma and the rest. M.W., p. 427. « P. 125, lines 1-2, vol. 1. * ?• 1. Une 1, vol. 1. 1 P. 132, line 7. 8 ?• 163, line 16. 8 See footnote 4, above. 10 The horse-aacrifice. [SO. 1. 1. 4. 36 VEPlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.] .therefore, an enquiry into religious duties' (Pu. Ml. Su. 1.1.1 *), it is said that the Veda has meaning as possessing the fruit to be attained through the injunctions regarding conceptions which are instrumental to the Vedic studies. In the second aphorism which is concerned with mark, viz. 'A religious duty has injunction for its mark' (Pu. Ml. Su. 1.1.2 s ), it is established, on the ground of the vyapti: 'What- ever has the Veda for its proof, refers to action', that in the sphere of religious duties, injunction is the authority. 8 Here a doubt arises as to whether the artha-vada-texts like 'The wind is the swiftest deity' (Tait. Sam. 2.1.1 4 ) are authoritative in the sphere of religious duties, or not. With regard to it, the prima facie view is as follows : We have a text: 'Since Scripture is concerned with action, there is purportlessness of what does not refer to it (viz. action) ' (Pu. Mi. Su. 1.2.1 6 ). (It means:) — 'Scripture, i.e. the Veda, is 'kriyartha', i.e. has 'action' alone as its 'purport', or subject-matter or topic, — for this reason, the artha-vada-texts are not authoritative. What then are they? — anticipating this question, the text goes on to say that ' 'there is purportlessness of what does not refer to it', i.e. let there be simply 'purportlessness' or 'meaninglessness' of that which has not 'action' for its 'purport', viz. of artha-vada and the rest, and in the very same manner, of the Vedanta-texts as well. Even those (Ve- danta-) texts which comprise injunctions regarding study: viz. 'One's own text should be studied', cannot be reasonably said to be autho- ritative, since they are (really) concerned with Brahman, leading to no fruit. 6 (Here ends the prima facie view within the original prima facie view.) With regard to this, we state the correct conclusion: 'Because of their unanimity with the injunctions, let (them be authoritative) through having the glorification of injunctions as their i P.l.vol. 1. » P. 3, vol. 1. * That is, the inference is as follows: — Whatever has the Veda for its proof, refers to action. A religious duty has the Veda for its proof. .'. a religious duty refers to action, i.e. is concerned with injunctions and prohibitions. * P. 126, lines 1-2, vol. 1. » P. 39, vol. 1. * That is, there are some Vedanta-texim, which do refer to action, i.e. to injunction, yet they are not to be taken as authoritative, since they really refer to Brahman who is outside the sphere of actions and fruits. [SO. 1. 1. 4. ADH. 4.] VBDiNTA-KAUSTlTBHA 37 purport' (Pu. Ml. Su. 1.2.7 1 ). That is, since the artha-vadas are unanimous with the injunctive texts, let them be authoritative 'through having glorification as their purport', i.e. by way of glorifying the matters to be enjoined. Similarly, in order to prevent the absolute purportlessness of the Vedanta -texts which are wanting in injunction and prohibition and teach an accomplished object (viz. Brahman), it is reasonable to take them too as indirectly connected with action, — which is something to be accomplished, — as included under the very mantras and artha-vadas, since they (viz. the Vedanta-texts) admit injunctions regarding the study of the Veda. But if they be taken to be independent (of action) they would lead to no fruit, and hence they must be understood to have fulfilled their purpose through establishing the agent, who is a part of a sacrifice (and not to be independent of action). Among these, the texts concerning the 'that' (viz. Brahman) and 'thou' (viz. the individual soul) 2 glorify the deity and the agent of the sacrificial act; and the knowledge concerning it (viz. the 'that') called the 'higher knowledge', 3 glorify the fruit. (Thus, we conclude :) The Vedanta-texts are not concerned with Brahman, but are like the artha-vada-texts, since they are con- cerned with proclaiming the excellence of the agent, who is a subordi- nate factor in a sacrifice. (Here ends the original prima facie view. 4 ) (Author's conclusion.) To this we reply: B No, because this is a mere imagination, in- vented by you ; and because (on the contrary), works, being generative of knowledge which is a means to salvation, indirectly refer to Brahman alone, as declared by the scriptural text: — 'The Brahmanas desire to know this self through the study of the Veda, through sacrifice, through penance, through fasting ' (Brh. 4.4.22). Here, if in the statement 'They desire to know through sacrifice', there be a direct connection of the instrument, viz. 'sacrifice', with the meaning of the root, 8 as in the sentence 'He desires to go by the horse', then the sacrificial act should be known to be serving the purpose of knowledge (i.e. helping the rise of knowledge), and thereby referring to Brahman. i P. 42, vol. 1. * Cf. the famous text 'Thou art that' (Chand. 6.8.7, etc.). » Vide e.g. Mund. 1.1.4-5. * It began on p. 35. » The correct conclusion begins here. * Viz. '«&{'*• to know. [str. 1. 1. 4. 38 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.] If, on the other hand, owing to the primacy of the desiderative suffix, 1 there be a connection with the meaning of the suffix, it should be known to be serving the purpose of desire, (i.e. helping the rise of a desire for knowledge), to be a subordinate factor of knowledge through that desire and to be referring to Brahman thereby. And, the fact that action is a part of knowledge will be stated under the aphorism : ' And, there is dependence on all, on account of the text concerning sacrifice, as in the case of a horse ' (Br. Su. 3.4.26). It cannot be said, also, that the reality to be known from the Vedanta (viz. Brahman) is a subordinate factor of sacrifices, — since He is self-dependent as the controller of all works, their agents and their instruments. Nor can it be said that the Vodanta-texts are subsidiary parts of injunctions like the artha-vadas, since the former have been referred to in a different context and are not in proximity to injunctions. Nor can it be said that the Vedanta-texts lead to no fruit, teaching, as they do, something which is neither an injunction nor a prohibition, — since the knowledge of Brahman, who is to be known from the Vedanta, leads to a supremely excellent fruit, viz. salvation. If it be said: As we read in texts like ' Undecaying, verily, is the good deed of one who performs the Catur-masya 2 sacrifice' (Ap. oA 8.1.1.1 8 ) that workB too have the same fruit like it (viz. knowledge), so there is nothing objectionable (in taking the scriptural texts) to be referring to works, — (We reply :) No, because the scriptural text : ' Just as here, the world gained through work perishes, so exactly does hereafter the world gained through merit perish' (Chand. 8.1.6 4 ) is of a greater force; is in conformity with the inference, viz. 'The world gained through mere work is non-permanent, because it is gained through work alone, as in the case of tilling and the rest'; and is confirmed by another scriptural text as well, viz. 'Frail, indeed, are these boats of sacrifices' (Mund. 1.2.7); because the text: 'Undecaying, verily' (Ap. S.S. 8.1.1) and so on is a weaker one; and because it is improper to (take the scriptural texts) to be referring to works, which form the object of such texts wanting in force. On the other hand, the 1 Viz. ' aan ', implying ' desire '. » See footnote 2, p. 5. »P.l, vol. 1. * Correct quotation: 'Karma-cita' and not 'karma-jita', which is translated here. Vide Chftnd. 8.1.6, p. 415. [80. 1. 1. 4. ADH. 4.] VEDlNTA-KATOTUBHA 39 texts: ' Those who know this, become immortal ' (Brh. 4.4.14; Katha 6.2.9; Svet. 3.1.10.13; 4.17.20), ' The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tait. 2.1), are not contradicted by any scriptural text, and cannot be set aside by a thousand inferences. Further, the text: ' Undecaying, indeed' and so on (Ap. S.6. 8.1.1) is not really set aside, since it refers to the relative (permanence of works) 1 , and since the holy Bhagavata-smrti (i.e. the Bhagavad-gita), which is a version of the Veda, is the authority in both the cases (viz. regarding the non- permanence of karma, and the permanence of Brahman) thus: — ' " The worlds, beginning from the world of Brahman, come and go, Arjuna ! But, on attaining me, Son of Kunti ! there is no re-birth " ' (Glta 8.16). If it be objected : It may be that the Upanisadic portion is somehow or other concerned with Brahman, since we see it to be so. But the prior portion (viz. the Karma-kanda) is known from the texts: ' He performs the Agnihotra 2 as long as he lives', 'One who desires heaven should perform the Jyotistoma sacrifice' (Ap. 6.S. 10.2.1) and so on, to fulfil its purpose by enjoining obligatory and optional works and the rest; and hence how can they be concerned with Brahman ? — (We reply :) Not so. The entire Veda is concerned only with Brahman, and although some part of it is found to refer to action somehow, its complete concordance is found in Brahman alone. Among these the Upanisadic portion refers directly to Brahman, directly concerned, as it is, with demonstrating His nature, attributes and the rest. Among these, again, the statements of difference refer to Brahman by way of being concerned with the nature of the sentient, the non-sentient and Brahman; the statements of non-difference, by being concerned with proving that everything has Brahman for its essence ; the statements of creation and the rest, by being concerned with proving attributes like creatorship and the rest; the statements that Brahman is non-qualified, by being concerned with the denial of the qualities due to maya ; the statements that Brahman is qualified, by being concerned with proving the natural qualities of the Lord; 1 That is, this text simply shows that the deeds of one who performs the CStur-mdgya sacrifice are relatively more permanent than the deeds of one who does not, and not that they are absolutely permanent. * Sacrificing to Agni. Cf. Athar. V. 6.97.1, p. 130. [sC. 1. 1. 4. 40 VEDANTA-KAtTSTUBHA ADH. 4.] and the statements like: 'That which is not manifested through speech' (Kena 1.4), by being concerned with proving that Brahman is not limited by so-muchness. The texts, concerned with the daily and occasional duties, 1 too, refer to Brahman alone, by way of effecting the purification of the nature of the person entitled (to the study of Brahman) and being thereby co-operative towards the rise of knowledge and so. on concern- ing Brahman; while (the texts) concerned with the optional duties, 2 by way of being an atomic bit of the bliss of Brahman, since the text : 'Other beings subsist on a portion only of His bliss alone' (Brh. 4.3.32) declares even worldly pleasure to be an atomic portion of the bliss of Brahman. Moreover, the optional duties are in concordance (with regard to Brahman), since they are concerned with the knowledge of Brahman by way of giving rise to a pure body, like that of a god and the rest, entitled to salvation. Moreover, just as in accordance with the maxim of 'connection and disconnection', 8 curd, used in connection with daily duties (nitya), — as laid down in the passage: 'He performs a sacrifice with curd', — brings about the attainment of objects of sense, — as laid down in the passage: 'One who desires for objects of sense should perform a sacrifice with curd' (Tait. Br. 2.1.5.6*), — so the sacrificial acts, though bringing about heaven and the rest, should yet be known to be serving the purpose (i.e. helping the rise) of knowledge. 5 And (finally) texts like: 'Golden right from the tip of His nails' (Chand. 1.6.6 6 ) refer to Brahman as being concerned with His divine body. Or else, since the entire mass of objects has Brahman for its essence, the mass of texts, denoting them, directly refer to Him. 7 1 The daily or nitya karmas are ablution, prayer and so on, to be performed every day ; while the occasional or naimittaka karmas are the ceremony in honour of the dead and bo on, to be performed on special occasions. Both of these kinds are obligatory. 2 The optional or kamya karmas are sacrifices and the rest, undertaken with special objects in view, viz. heaven and the rest. » A term applied to express the disconnection of what is optional from what is a necessary constituent of anything. Vide Pu. MI. Su. 4.3.5, and Sahara's commentary, pp. 403 and ff., vol. 1. * P. 180, line 3, vol. 2. « Vide V.K. 3.4.26. • Correct quotation 'Apranakhat sarva eva suvarnah'. Vide Chand. 1.6.6, p. 43. 1 That is, instead of the laborious explanation given above, it is simpler to accept this alternative explanation. [8tT. 1. 1. 5. ADH. 5.] VEDlNTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 41 Hence it is established that the entire Veda is in concordance with regard to Brahman alone or Lord Krsna the Highest Person, omniscient, possessing infinite natural and inconceivable powers, the cause of the world, and different and non-different from the sentient and the non-sentient, as declared by the Lord Himself in the passage: ' "By all the Vedas, I alone am to be known" ' (Gita 15.15). The four aphorisms constituting the basis of Scripture are hereby explained. This treatise (viz. the Vedanta) is but an expounding of these. Here ends the section entitled 'Concordance' (4). Here ends the explanation of the four aphorisms in the first quarter of the first chapter in the commentary Vedanta-kaustubha, composed by the reverend teacher Srlnivasa, the incarnation of the Paficajanya and dwelling under the lotus-feet of the reverend Lord Nimbaditya, the founder of the sect of the reverend Sanatkumara. Adhikarana 5: The section entitled 'He sees'. (Sutras 5-12) SCTRA 5 "Because (the creator of the world) sees, (pradhana is) not (the cause op the world) (since) it is non-scriptural." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha But pradhana, admitted by the Samkhyas, is "non-scriptural", i.e. is devoid of scriptural evidence. Hence it is "not" the cause of the world, as in Scripture seeing, which is a characteristic of a sentient being, is predicated of the cause of the world. Vedanta-kaustubha Thus, it has been pointed out that Brahman, great in attributes, powers and nature, omniscient, and the one object of all the Vedas, is the cause of the origin and the rest of the world. Now, the Sam- khyas, — who hold that Brahman is not the cause of the world, since He is of a dissimilar form ; while the non-sentient pradhana, consisting of the three gunas, is the cause of the world, since it is of a form [stJ. 1. 1. 5. 42 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] similar to the effect, — also relate the VedSnta-texts like '"The existent, alone, my dear, was this in the beginning'" (Chand. 6.2.1) and so on, to it alone (viz. pradhana). The reverend author of the aphorisms is now refuting this view. Pradhana, which is derived through inference, 1 is not fit to be the cause of the origin and the rest of the world. Why ? Because it is "non-scriptural", i.e. that with regard to which there is no " word", i.e. Scripture, as authority. This adjective denotes the reason. If it be objected that in the Chandogya, pradhana is meant by the term 'existent' in the passage: ' " The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning " ' (Chand. 6.2.1). Hence, how can it be said that pradhana is non-scriptural? — we reply: "Because (the creator) sees", i.e. because from the text, beginning: ' " Existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning " ' (Chand. 6.2.1), and con- tinuing: ' He thought, " May I be many, may I procreate " ' (Chand. 6.2.3), we find that the creator of the world perceives. The same thing is mentioned in the Aitareya as well in the passage : ' The self, verily, was this in the beginning, one only. Nothing else was apparent. He thought: "Let me create worlds". He created these worlds' (Ait. 1.1.1). Here the word "sees", denotative of the root, must be understood, by indirect application, to be referring to 'seeing', which is the meaning of the root. 'Seeing' means deliberating, i.e. deter- mination; and that, being the attribute of a conscious being, is not appropriate on the part of the pradhana. Hence, pradhana, devoid of perception, is not mentioned by Scripture. Accordingly, it has been rightly said by his Holiness that it is "non-scriptural". There- fore, it is neither the cause of the world, nor knowable through the Veda. It cannot be said also that pradhana possesses the power of knowledge through its attribute of sattva, and as such, perceiving is appropriate on its part, — since it is impossible that a non-sentient substance and a non-sentient attribute can possess knowledge, and be knowledge (respectively). Nor should it be said that this is appro- priate through the connection of pradhana with purusa, — because there being (at hand) Brahman, mentioned before and possessed of 1 That is, we cannot directly perceive the primary matter, but we argue that every effect must have a cause, that cause too another cause and so on, and thus finally, we must admit a primary cause which has no cause. This is the pradhana. [s(J. 1. 1. 5. ADH. 5.] VBDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 43 ever-present knowledge, as a simple (explanation of the fact in hand), — it involves unnecessary complications to drag in something which is the substratum of knowledge, only through its conjunction with another, (and not by itself); because such a view is utterly negligible; and, finally because during its state of equilibrium, it does not possess that attribute. 1 So stop labouring the point. Hence, the cause corresponding to the effect, viz. the cause of the origin and the rest of the world, is none but Brahman, who is denoted by the term 'existent' and is capable of perceiving, possessed as He is of natural, inconceivable and infinite powers, as declared by the scriptural text : ' Supreme is His powers, declared to be of various kinds, and natural is the action of His knowledge and power* (Svet. 6.8.) and so on. COMPARISON Sarnkara Beading and interpretation same, but Sarnkara develops, in this connection, his doctrine of upadhi, or limiting adjunct, viz. — that there is really nothing besides Brahman, the individual soul and the rest being due to the limiting adjuncts of body, and the rest, like the all-pervading ether, limited by pots and the rest. Hence difference is mithya through and through. 2 Ramanuja Reading and interpretation same, but Ramanuja also develops his own view, viz. that the universe of the sentient and the non- sentient constitutes the body of the Lord. 3 Baladeva Reading same, interpretation different, — viz. ' Because (Brahman is) seen (i.e. designated by Scripture), (He is) not inexpressible '. 4 1 That is, if knowledge arises through the pre-dominance of the sattva-gutm, then prior to creation, all the gurias being in a state of equilibrium, no knowledge can arise in pradhana. * 6.B. 1.1.5, p. 203. 3 Sri. B. 1.1.6, p. 160, Part 1. * G.B. 1.1.5, pp. 46-47, Chap. 1. [SO. 1. 1. 6. 44 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] SOTRA 6 " If it be said that (the wobd ' seeing ' in the above Chan- dooya-text) is secondaby, (then we reply) No, because of the term 'self' (being applied to the cause of the wobld)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha It is not reasonable to say that the 'seeing' is (only) "secondary". Why ? "On account of the term 'self '." Vedanta-kaustubha Anticipating the objection, viz. — As we often find the metaphorical transference of the qualities of a sentient being to non-sentient objects like a bank or tilling, e.g. when referring to a bank about to fall, it is said: 'The bank is about to fall', 1 or when referring to the tilling of dry soil, it is said: 'Tilling is awaiting rain'; and as we read in Scripture about perception on the part of non-sentient objects like water and light, in the passages : ' That light perceived ' (Chand. 6.2.3), ' Those waters perceived ' (Chand. 6.2.4), — there may very well be a metaphorical perception on the part of pradhana in the very same manner, — the author disposes of it here. If it be said that the attribute of perception, belonging to pradhana is "secondary", (we reply:) "No." Why? "On account of the term 'self'", i.e. on account of the scriptural mention of the term 'self which establishes the absence of perception on the part of pradhana. Thus, if by taking the term 'existence' to mean the non-sentient pradhana, a metaphorical perception be admitted on its part, then in the texts: 'All this has that for its self, that is true, that is the self ' (Chand. 6.7.8; 6.9.4; 6.10.3; 6.11.3; 6.12.3; 6.13.3; 6.14.3; 6.15.3; 6.16.3), the term 'self' must refer to the non-sentient substance, which is the meaning of the terms 'existent' and 'perceiver', mentioned before in the texts: '"The existent, alone, my dear I" ' (Chand. 6.2.1), 'He perceived' (Chand. 6.2.3). That is, on the view,, viz. 'He alone is the existent and the perceiver, the self which is pradhana', — the identity between the terms 'existent' and the rest denoting the non- sentient and bearing a different sense and the term 'self' denoting the 1 Here the desiderative suffix does not imply 'wish' but 'imminent danger' (aiarpka), in accordance with K.V.S. 1707 quoted in SD.K. 2622, pp. 335, vol. 2. [BO. 1. 1. 7. ADH. 5.] VBDANTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 45 Supreme Self and bearing a different sense, will involve a contradiction, it being impossible for the term 'self denotative of the Supreme Lord, to refer to pradhana. Hence, to say that the perception is even meta- phorical is unreasonable. And owing to the entering of the Deity (into them), (the perception) on the part of water and light is not metaphorical 1 — thiB is the sum and substance. COMPARISON Baladeva Beading same, interpretation different, viz. — 'If it be said (that the creator of the world is) the gauna (or the Saguna Brahman, connected with the gunas of prakrti, possessing the sattva guna as his vesture), (then we reply,) No, on account of the term "self " '. That is, the term 'self has been used in Scripture in connection with the creator of the world, and this term can be applied only to the infinite Nirguna Brahman, unconnected with the gunas of prakrti. 2 SCTRA 7 "(Pradhana cannot be meant by the term 'self',) because salvation is taught of one who relies upon that." Vedanta -parijata - saurabha As salvation, characterized by the attainment of His (i.e. Brah- man's) nature, is taught of a knower, who relies on the cause, the meaning of the terms 'existent', 'perceiver', 'self and the rest, — so pradhana cannot be denoted by the terms 'existent' and 'self. Vedanta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. in that case, let the term 'self stand equally for the sentient and the non-sentient, like the term 'light' 8 which » That is, it is not water or fire that really perceives, but the Lord who has entered into them, as mentioned in the passage: 'That Divinity thought:— "Come, let me enter these three divinities" (i.e, fire, water and food)' and so on. (Ch&nd. 0.3.2.) * G.B. 1.1.6 (p. 48, Chap. 1.). * Jyotif. [SC. 1. 1. 7. 46 VEDANTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] denotes equally a sacrifice * and fire ; hence, no inconsistency is in- volved here, — the reverend Badarayana replies here: The non-sentient pradhana is not the object denoted by the term 'self'. Why? "Because salvation is taught of one who relies on Him" i.e. of one who has reliance (or devotion), otherwise called 'meditation', with regard to Him, i.e. with regard to one who is denoted by the terms 'existent' and the rest, who is a perceiver and who is the creator of fire, water and food. 2 Thus, after having taught an investigation, by one who is desirous of salvation, into the effect as consisting of the Cause (viz. Brahman) in essence, in the text: 'Thou art that' (Chand. 6.8.7; 6.9.8; 6.10.3; 6.11.3; 6.12.3; 6.13.3; 6.14.3; 6.15.3; 6.16.3), Scripture goes on to teach salvation, characterized by the attainment of the nature of Brahman, in the text: 'For him there is delay, so long as I am not freed, then I shall attain (Brahman)' (Chand. 6.14.2). (The meaning of this text is:) So long as a person, who desires for salvation, is not freed from his body and is impeded, being compelled to undergo the fruits of works which have already begun to produce results, there is delay for him; but when the fruits of works will be fully enjoyed, he will attain the nature of Brahman at once, owing to the absence of impediments. The use of the first person in both the cases, viz. 'I shall be free', and 'I shall attain' should be known to be implying the third person in accordance with Vedic use. If in the text 'He is the Self (Chand. 6.8.7, etc.), the term 'self' is to refer to pradhana, then in the text 'Thou art that' (Chand. 6.8.7, etc.), the very same thing must be referred to by the term 'that'. Hence the text: 'Thou art that' would mean: 'Thou hast pradhana for thy soul ', whereby a great mishap would take place, since through the meditation: 'I have the non-sentient as my soul', one would be obstructed from salvation for ever. In the present case, on the other hand, Brahman, having the stated characteristics, is denoted by the term 'that'; and the meaning of the term 'thou' is the individual soul, His part, otherwise called His power, and possessed of the stated marks. Here, between the part and the whole, there is a relation of difference and non-difference, — well-known everywhere in ordinary life and in the Veda, — as between the attribute and its substratum. * Viz. JyotifPoma. • This explains the compound: 'tan-nisfhasya'. [sC. 1. 1. 8. ADH. 5.] VEDlNTA-PABIJATA-SAURABHA 47 Although the individual soul is different from Brahman in nature, it is also non-different from Him, having no existence and activity apart from Him. On account of being enveloped by the beginningless maya, the individual soul has no knowledge of such a non-difference. Hence it is said 'Thou art that', i.e. you are non-different from the object denoted by the term 'that '. Even during the state of salvation, one who has attained the nature of Brahman is of a different nature (from Brahman), but should yet be known to be non-different from Him, because of having no existence and activity separately from Him; because from the text: 'He attains the highest identity' (Mund. 3.1.3) we learn that Brahman alone is one that is to be approached, while the individual soul only one that approaches ; and, finally, because we find the words 'together with' in the text: 'He enjoys all objects of desire together with Brahman, the all-knowing' (Tait. 2.1). Hence, Brahman alone is denoted by the terms 'existent', 'self and the rest. COMPARISON Baladeva Reading same, interpretation different — viz: — '(The creator of the world is not the Saguna Brahman, but the Nirguna Brahman *), for salvation is taught of him who relies on Him (viz. the Nirguna Brahman)'.* SCTRA 8 "AND (PBADHlNA CANNOT BE DENOTED BY THE TERMS 'existent', 'self' AND THE BEST), BECAUSE THERE IS NO (SCRIPTURAL) STATEMENT OV ITS HAVING TO BE ABANDONED." Vedanta -pari jata - saurabha That the non-sentient substance, taught by the terms 'existent' and the rest and to be abandoned in salvation, is to be abandoned, as well as the purpose of the teaching 3 ought to have been pointed out 1 For the explanation of the terms Saguna and Nirguva, see G.B. * G.B. 1.1.7, pp. 40-50, Chap. 1. » That is, if pradhdna be denoted by the terms 'existent', 'self and the rest, then evidently, such a self, etc., cannot serve the purpose of salvation. Hence there must be some other purpose for the teaching of pradhdna, since Scripture does not teach anything which does not fulfil an end. But there is no indication in Scripture what this other purpose is. [stJ. 1. 1. 8. 48 VEDlNTA-KAtTSTUBHA ADH. 5.] by Scripture, omniscient and the well-wisher of men. Because of the absence of these two kinds of texts, pradhana is not denoted by the terms 'existent' and the like. Vedanta-kaustubha If the non-sentient pradhana alone were taught as that which is denoted by the terms 'existent', 'perceiver' and the like, then, in order to prevent reliance upon that, Scripture, omniscient, well- wishing, and intending to instruct Brahman, should have told that it is to be rejected, just as a mother says to her son, about to take something not good, ' Son, this is not good '. But there is no statement that it is to be rejected ; on the contrary, an identity with it is taught in the passage: 'Thou art that* (Chand. 6.8.7; 6.9.8; 6.10.3; 6.11.3; 6.12.3; 6.13.3; 6.14.3; 6.15.3; 6.16.3). The term "and" is meant for including (another reason, viz.) the absence of statement indicating the purpose of such a teaching. COMPARISON Satnkara Beading same, interpretation same on the whole. Only, while Nimbarka interprets the term "Ca" to mean 'the purpose of such a teaching', Samkara takes it to mean 'the contradiction of the initial proposition ', viz. the cause being known, the effects are also known. 1 Evidently, through the knowledge of the non-sentient pradhana, there can be no knowledge of the sentient souls. Hence pradhana cannot be the cause of the universe. 2 RSmSnuja Beading and interpretation same. He gives no special meaning of the term "ca", but takes it to mean simply 'also', and not a second reason. 3 Bhaskara Beading and interpretation same on the whole. Bhaskara inter- prets this sutra exactly after Samkara, taking the term "ca" to mean 'contradiction of the initial proposition'.* i Vide Ch&nd. 6.1. a £.B. 1.1.8, p. 209. » Sri. B. 1.1.6, p. 163, vol. 1. * Bh. B. 1.1.8, p. 23. [80. 1. 1. 9. ADH. 5.] VEDANTA-FARIJITA-SAUHABHA 49 Baladeva Reading same, interpretation different, viz. 'And because there is no statement of the rejectibility (of the Saguna Brahman)'. That is, Scripture declares the inferiority and worthlessness of all saguna objects, or objects connected with the gunas of prakrti, viz. all worldly objects. Hence, if the Saguna Brahman were the creator of the world, then Scripture would have designated him as inferior and fit to be rejected. 1 SCTRA 9 " (Pbadhana cannot be the cause of the wobld), on account of the contba diction of the initial proposition." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha Moreover, "on account of the contradiction of the initial proposi- tion " as well, viz. through the knowledge of one, there is the know- ledge of all 2 , — the doctrine of the causality of tho non-sentient is not right. Vedanta -kaustubha Pradhana is not the cause of the world. Why i "On account of the contradiction of the initial proposition", viz. that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all. Thus, the scriptural text '"Did you ask for that instruction whoreby the unhoard becomes heard, the unthought becomes thought, the unknown becomes known?" "What is that instruction, my reverend Sir?"' (Chand. 6.1.2-3), introduces the doctrine that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all, and this will be contradicted. Although, through the knowledge of pradhana, there may be knowledge of its effects, yet the proposition that there is knowledge of all tho effects, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, is not established, since the sentient not being the effect of pradhana, its knowledge is not possible (through the knowledge of pradhana). » G.B. 1.1.8, pp. 50-51, Chap. 1. * Vide ChSnd. 6.1. 4 [SO. 1. 1. 10. 50 VBDiNTA-PlBIJATA-SAUEABHA ADH. 5.] COMPARISON Saiiikara and Bhaskara This sutra is not found in their commentaries. The argument contained herein is included by them, as we have seen, in the previous sutra. Baladeva This sutra is not found in his commentary as well. SOTRA 10 "(Brahman alone can be the cause of the wobld), on account or (the individual soul's) entrance into itself (during deep sleep)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha As it is impossible that the object, — mentioned in the passage referring to the cause of the world which is denoted by the term 'existent', viz. ' Understand from me, my dear, the state of deep sleep. When a person sleeps here, as we say, my dear, then he has become united with the Existent' (Chand. 6.8.1 x ), can be understood as a non-sentient cause, 2 it is reasonable to hold that Brahman alone is the cause of the world. Vedanta-kaustubha On account of the (soul's) "entrance", i.e. dissolution, into " itself", 8 i.e. into its own cause, viz. Brahman, introduced in the text: '"The existent alone, my dear!"' (Chand. 6.2.1), Brahman alone is denoted by the terms 'existent' and the rest, and not pradhana. If it be the cause, then the text concerning dissolution would be contradicted. Thus, there is a scriptural text to this effect, viz. 1 6.R. Bh. 6k. * A. alifciAYy different leading is given in the C.S.S. ed. — which, when translated, is as MVrws: — Aft five ' entenmg' , wV\ Vide Ch&nd. 3.12.1-4. [SO. 1.1.29. ADH. 11.] VEDANTA-PlBIJATA-SACrBABHA 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'. (Sutras 29-32) SCTRA 29 "(Bbahman is denoted by the wobd) vital-bbeath, on account of intelligibility in that way." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha In the text: 'I am the vital-breath' (Kaus. 3.2 *) 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. VedSnta-kaustubha Now, by showing, in the following four aphorisms, that the Kausitaki-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 Kausltaki-brahmana-upanisad, the Pratardana-vidya is recorded, beginning: 'Pratardana, verily, the son of Divodasa, arrived by fighting and valour at the beloved abode of Indra' (Kaus. 3.1). It is said here : Being told by Indra : ' " I will give you a boon" ' (Kaus. 3.1), Pratardana said: '"Do you yourself choose (a boon) for me, 2 what you consider to be the most beneficial for mankind"' (Kaus. » g, B, Bh, &K, B. * The word 'varam' is not included in the original text. 6 [stf. 1. 1. 29. 82 VEDiNTA-KAUSTCBHA ADH. 11.] 3.1), i.e. having considered the boon 'yourself', 'choose', i.e. give that 'to me'. Thus told by Pratardana, Indra said: '"I am the vital- breath, the intelligent Self. Worship me, as life, as immortality " ' (Kaus. 3.2); and again, later on: ' " The vital-breath, verily, is the in- telligent self that taking hold of this body, makes it stand up'" (Kaus. 3.3), '"Let none desire to enquire after speech, but let him know the speaker"' (Kaus. 3.8), and in conclusion also: ' "Now, this vital-breath itself, forsooth, is the intelligent self, bliss, ageless and immortal"' (Kaus. 3.8). Here, the doubt is, viz. whether a certain individual soul is denoted by the words 'Indra' and 'vital- breath ', or the Highest Self ? What is reasonable here ? The prima facie view is: As the word 'India' is well-known to be denoting an individual soul entrusted with a certain office, and as there is a text regarding the object denotable by the term 'Indra', viz. '"I am the vital-breath"' (Kaus. 3.2), — the word ' vital- breath ' also denotes 'Indra'. From the text: '"Worship me as life, as immor- tality " ' (Kaus. 3.2), he alone is known hero as the object to be worshipped. With regard to this, the correct conclusion is as follows: "The vital-breath", i.e. the meaning of the word 'vital- breath' and what is denoted by the words 'Indra' and the rest accompanying it, are the Highest Self alone. Why? '"On account of intelligibility in that way,'" i.e. because qualities like 'highest auspiciousness', 'being the intelligent self', 'bliss', 'agelessness' and the rest are intelligible '"in that way'", i.e. only if the Highest Self be understood. Thus, first, it is said in the beginning: 'The son of Divodasa went to tho beloved abode of Indra' 1 (Kaus. 3.1), where Indra, conceiving tho dependence of his own self on Brahman for its existence and activity, did not think: 'I am Indra'; but, being merged in the bliss of Brahman and conceiving that the sentient and the non-sentient objects have Brahman as their self, reflected: 'Brahman, alone, is all this, I am Brahman'; and looked upon even those who had committed sins as his own self. And, the object to be attained by the Self (viz. Indra) and by those who were equal to the Self (viz. all other beings whom Indra looked upon as his self) was Brahman alone; the means thereto being simply the worship of His feet. Indra told to Pratardana, who had arrived there, i.e. at his so-beloved place: 'Choose a boon'. And, thus 1 The word 'tivat' is not included in the quotation. [stJ. 1. 1. 30. ADH. 11.] VEDlNTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 83 requested, Pratardana too, wishing for the highest goal of men, said to him, who was very modest, free from pride, and desirous of inti- mating the means to the highest goal of men, '"Do you yourself choose a boon for me" ' and so on. Thereupon, the vital- breath was taught to Pratardana as the object to be worshipped, in the passage: '"I am the vital-breath"' (Kaus. 3.2) and so on. How can the vital-breath, taught thus as the highest goal of men, be an individual soul? How can the text: '"Worship me"' (Kaus. 3.2) bo intelligible except as designating the worship of the Supreme Brahman ? The individual soul, the witness of the three states 1 , being a part and not fit to be attained by another individual soul, is not attainable through the intuition of a knower. And (the adjective) 'most beneficial' (in the text : ' "What you considor to be the most beneficial for mankind " ') does not apply to anything else except to the attainment of Brahman. (The qualities like) 'being the intelligent self, 'bliss', 'agolessness', and 'immortality', mentioned in the passages: '"Worship me as lifo, as immortality'" 2 (Kaus. 2.3), 'This alone, verily, is the intelligent self, bliss, ageless, immortal' (Kaus. 3.8), fit in only if Brahman be understood, and not otherwise. Hence, the words 'Indra', 'vital- breath' and so on were used by the celebrated Indra with a view to designating Brahman, and not his own self. SOTRA 30 "If it be objected that (Bbahman is) not (denoted), on account of the self of the sfeakeb being taught, (we reply :) because these is a multitude of references to the self in IT." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha If it be objected : The object denoted by the words 'vital-breath ' and the rest cannot bo Brahman. Why? Because in the text: '"Know me alone"' (Kaus. 3.1 3 ), the very self of the speaker is taught, — 1 Viz. waking, dream, deep sleep. a Correct quotation translated: 'tarn mam'. » 6, R, Bh, gK, B. . [SO. 1. 1. 30. 84 VEDlNTA-KAUSTPBHA ADH. 11.] (We reply:) ' "In this " ' chapter, there is a multitude of references to the Highest Self. Hence, the object denoted by the words 'vital- breath', 'Indra' and the rest is the Highest Self alone. Vedanta-kaustubha If it be objected: In the aphorism: 'The vital-breath, on account of intelligibility in that way' (Br. Su. 1.1.29), it has been said that the object denoted by the words 'vital-breath', 'Indra' and so on, is Brahman. That is not the case. Why? '"On account of the self of the speaker being taught," ' i.e. because the very self of the speaker, viz. Indra, who says at first: '"Know me alone"' (Kaus. 3.1), and later on: '"I am the vital-breath, the intelligent self" (Kaus. 3.2), — his very individual character, well-known from the passage: '"I killed the three-headed son of Tvastr, I delivered the Arunmukhas, the ascetics, to the wolves'" (Kaus. 3.1), — is taught as the object to be worshipped. Thus, the introductory text here refers to the individual soul. This being so, the concluding text too, viz. 'Bliss, ageless, immortal' (Kaus. 3.8), should refer to it, — We reply: ' "Because there is a multitude of references to the self in it'", i.e. "because", i.e. certainly, "in it", viz. in this chapter, there is "a multitude of references to the self", i.e. numerous references to that which is above the (individual) self, viz. the Highest Self; that means, in this chapter there are (mentioned) a great many attributes of the Highest Self. Hence there cannot be any reference to any individual soul like Indra here, — this is the resulting meaning. Thus, the worship of what is the most beneficial, mentioned in the introduc- tory text : ' "What you consider to be the most beneficial for mankind " ' (Kaus. 3.1), is nothing but the worship of the Highest Self, because He alone is the most auspicious Being, as declared by another scriptural text: 'By knowing Him alone, one surpasses death; there is no other way to salvation' (&vet. 6.15). Similarly, making one do good or evil deeds as declared by the text: 'He alone makes one, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, perform good action. He alone makes one, whom he wishes to lead downwards from these worlds, perform evil action ' 1 (Kaus. 3.8), is a quality of the Highest Self alone. Likewise, being the support of all sentient and non-sentient 1 Correct quotation translated: 'Eaa hi eva enam . . . . , e$a u eva enam aaddhu karma kSrayati tarn yam adho ninitate'. Vide Kaus. 3.8, p. 130. [SO. 1. 1.31. ADH. 11.] VEDINTA-PIEIJITA-SAUBABHA 85 objects, — depicted by the term ' elements of intelligence ' in the text which, beginning thus: 'The vital-breath alone is the intelligent self that, taking hold of the body, makes it stand up' (Kaus. 3.3), goes on: 'As of a chariot the rim of the wheel is fixed on the spokes, and the spokes are fixed on the nave, even so these elements of being are fixed on the elements of intelligence, and the elements of intelligence are fixed on the vital-breath ' (Kaus. 3.8) ; — as well as bliss and the rest, mentioned in the text: 'Now, this vital-breath, forsooth, is the intelligent self, bliss, ageless, immortal' (Kaus. 3.8), are qualities of the Highest Self alone. 'Being the Self and 'being the object to be known', mentioned in conclusion in the text: '"Let one know: "He is my self" (Kaus. 3.8), are also qualities of the Highest Self. Hence, a great many attributes of the Highest Self being mentioned here, the Highest Self alone is denoted by the terms 'Indra', ' vital - breath' and the rest. SCTRA 31 "BUT THE INSTRUCTION (GIVEN BY INDBA ABOUT HIMSELF) (is justifiable) thbough scriptubal insight, as in the case OF VlMADEVA." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha Realizing that everything had Brahman for its soul, Indra properly said "through scriptural insight": '"Know me alone'" (Kaus. 3.1 1 ) — the scriptural text to this effect is: 'What sorrow, what delusion is there of him who perceives the unity ' (Isa. 7 2 ) — , just as Vamadeva said: '"I was Manu and the sun'" (Brh. 1.4.10; Rg. V. 4.26. la 3). Vedanta-kaustubha To the objection, viz.: Why then did Indra being one, (viz. an individual soul) taught himself as another (viz. Brahman) in the passage: '"Worship me"' (Kaus. 3.2) 1 — it is replied here: — No such objection can be raised. Just as a highly favoured royal servant says to the subjects, even like the king himself, 'I am your i 6, R, Bh, 6K, B. * S, R, Bh, &K, B. a P. 285, line 8. Not quoted by others. [SO, 1. 1. 31. 86 VEDlUTA-KATTSTtTBHA ADH. 11.] ruler to be worshipped by you', so is the case here. "But through scriptural insight." That is, in the passages, "'Know me alone'" (Kaus. 3.1), '"Worship me'" (Kaus. 3.2), and so on, Indra, who is only an individual soul, taught the Highest Self as his own self, conse- quent of knowing, "through scriptural insight", i.e. from scriptural texts, that the Supreme Brahman is the inner controller and the soul of all. The scriptural texts are the following: — ' All this has that for its self, that is true, that is the self, Brahman' 1 (Chand. 6.7.8; 6.9.4; 6.10.3; 6.11.3; 6.12.3; 6.13.3; 6.14.3; 6.15.3; 6.16.3), 'All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him, disappearing into him, breathing in him' (Chand. 3.1.4.), "'You have, truly, attained freedom from fear, Janaka " !' (Brh. 4.2.4), 'Who knows himself: " I am Brahman" ' * (Brh. 1.4.10), 'Entered within, the ruler of men, the soul of all' (Tait. At. 3.11.2 3 ), 'This is your soul, the'inner con- troller, immortal' (Brh. 3.7.3, etc.) and so on. Compare the case of Vamadeva, who intuiting the Highest Self, the Inner Controller of all, through scriptural insight, spoke of Him alone, when he said: 'Seeing this, the sage Vamadeva understood: "I was Manu and the sun'" (Brh. 1.4.10), 'I am the wise Kaksivan sage' (Rg. V. 4.26.1*). Hence the teaching: '"Know me alone'" (Kaus. 3.1), etc. is, indeed, proper. COMPARISON Srikantha He gives two alternative explanations, the last of which tallies with the explanation given by Nimbarka. 5 1 The word 'Brahman' is not included in the original texts. * Correct quotation: 'ya evam vedaham Brahmasmi'. Vide Brh. 1.4.10, p. 45. » P. 181. * The full quotation in IJg.V. is: 'I was Manu and the sun, I am the wise Kaksivan sage' — said by Indra. » $K. 1.1.31 (p. 288, Part 3). [sO. 1. 1. 32. adh. 11.] vedAnta-farijata-saurabha 87 SOTRA 32 "If it be objected that on account of the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath, (Brahman is) not (meant), (we reply:) no, on account of the threefoldness of meditation, on account of being referred to (elsewhere), on account of (its) suitability HEBEi Vedanta-parijata-saurabha If it be objected: On account of the characteristic marks of the individual soul, mentioned in the passages: — 'Let none desire to enquire into speech, but let him desire to know the speaker' (Kaus. 3.8 !), 'I slew the three-headed son of Tvastr' (Kaus. 3.1 2 ); as well as on account of the characteristic marks of the chief vital-breath, mentioned in the passage — 'The vital-breath alone is the intelligent self that taking hold of the body makes it stand up' (Kaus. 3.3 8 ), Brahman is not referred to here, — (We reply:) No, "because of the threefoldness of the meditation" on Brahman, in accordance with the different grades of meditating devotees, viz. (meditation on Brahman) as the Inner Controller of the group of individual souls, as the Inner Controller of the non-sentient objects, and as different from them both; "because it is referred to" (elsewhere); "because it is suitable here" also. Here ends the first quarter of the first chapter in the Vedanta- parijata-saurabha, an interpretation of the Sariraka-mimamsa-texts, and composed by the reverend Nimbarka. Vedanta -kaustubha If it be objected: Brahman cannot be denoted here by the words 'vital-breath' and the rest. Why? "On account of the character- istic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath." First, the characteristic marks of the individual soul are stated in the passages : 'Let none desire to enquire after speech, but let him desire to know the speaker' (Kaus. 3.8), '"I delivered the Arunmukhas, the > g, R, Bh, B. • R, l§K, Bh, B. » 6, R, Bh, B. [s0. 1. 1. 32. 88 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.] ascetics, to the wolves'" (Kaus. 3.1) and so on ; and the characteristic marks of the chief vital-breath are stated in the passage : 'Now, verily, the vital-breath alone is the intelligent soul that taking hold of this body makes it stand up' (Kaus. 3.1). Hence it is not possible that Brahman is referred to here, — (We, reply:) "No." Why? "On account of the threefoldness of meditation, on account of being referred (elsewhere), on account of (its) suitability here." That is, the designation of Brahman by such and such terms (viz. Indra and the vital-breath) is for the sake of teaching the threefoldness of meditation, just as elsewhere three kinds of meditation on Brahman are referred to. There (viz. in the Taittirlya-upanisad) Brahman is recommended to be meditated on in His own nature in the passages : ' Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite' (Tait. 2.1), 'Brahman is bliss' (Tait. 3.6); and to be medi- tated on as the inner soul of the sentient and the non-sentient, as well as the soul of all in the passages : ' Having created that, he entered into that very thing. Having entered it, He became real and that, defined and undefined, based and non-based, knowledge and non-knowledge' (Tait. 2.6). In the same manner "on account of its suitability", i.e. on account of the suitability of such a threefoldness, "here", i.e. in the Pratardanavidya as well, there is no divergence among the texts, the whole group of texts referring to one and the same Brahman. This should be understood here: If a text be ascertained from the introduction and the rest to be referring to Brahman, then if there be marks of anything else therein, those, too, should be referred to Brahman, who is the inner controller of that thing, who possesses it as His power, and who is the object to be meditated on. Hence, it is established that the object indicated by the words 'Indra', 'vital- breath' and the rest is the Highest Self. Here ends the seotion entitled 'Indra and the vital-breath' (11). Here ends the first section of the first chapter in the Vedanta- kaustubha, a commentary on the Sariraka-mlmamsa, and composed by the reverend teacher Srinivasa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of the reverend Nimbarka, the founder and teacher of the sect of the reverend Sanatkumara. [SO. 1. 1. 32. ADH. 11.] VEDiNTA-KAUSTUBHA 89 COMPARISON Sarnkara This is sutra 31 in his commentary. Beading same. He gives two alternative explanations of the second part of the sutra, viz. the reply to the objection, thus: — - (1) 'If it be objected . . . . , (then, we reply:) — On account of the threefoldness of meditation, (i.e. your interpretation would involve the assumption of devout meditation of throe kinds, viz. on the individual soul, on the chief vital-breath and on Brahman, but one and the same section cannot teach three different kinds of things). (Moreover, the word "vital-breath" must denote Brahman here,) on account of (that meaning) being accepted (elsewhere), on account of connection here (i.e. in the passage itself characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned). (Hence the conclusion is that Brahman is the topic of the whole chapter.) ' This interpretation is different from Nimbarka's interpretation. Or, 'If it be objected .... , (then, we reply:) (the charac- teristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath are not out of place in a chapter which deals with Brahman) on account of the threefoldness of meditation (i.e. because this chapter aims simply at advocating thereby the three ways of meditating on Brahman, viz. under the aspect of the prana, under the aspect of prajfia, and in itself, according as Brahman is viewed either with reference to the two limiting adjuncts, or in itself) ; because (in other passages also we find that meditation on Brahman is) made dependant (on Brahman being qualified by limiting adjuncts — cf. Chand. 3.14.2); because (the hypothesis that Brahman is meditated on under three aspects) is perfectly consistent here (i.e. in the prana chapter *). This inter- pretation too does not tally, with Nimbarka's interpretation, for Nimbarka does not hold that the sentient and the non-sentient — under the aspects of which Brahman is meditated on — are limiting adjuncts of Brahman. Ramanuja Reading and interpretation same. According to Ramanuja, the three kinds of meditation are: — (1) Meditation on Brahman in His own nature as the cause of the world, (2) meditation on Brahman as » S.B. 1.1.31, pp. 256 ff. [sC. 1. 1. 32. 90 VBDiNTA'KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.] having the totality of the enjoying souls as His body (i.e. as the inner soul of the sentient), and (3) meditation on Brahman as having the objects and means of enjoyment for His body (i.e. as the inner soul of the non-sentient). 1 Bhaskara This is sutra 31 in his commentary. Reading different — viz. omits the portion: 'Asritatvad iha tad-yogat'. Two alternative interpretations given, the first (the author's own view) exactly like Samkara's first explanation; tho second (the view of others: 'apare tu', etc.) like Nimbarka's explanation. 2 Srikanfha Reading and interpretation same. He points out, exactly after Ramanuja, that the three kinds of meditations on the Lord are — svarupena, bhoktr-sarirena and bhogya-rupena. 3 Baladeva This is sutra 31 in Baladeva. His interpretation is like Samkara's first interpretation. 4 Resume The first quarter of the first chapter contains : — (1) 32 sutras and 11 adhikaranas, according to Nimbarka; (2) 31 sutras and 11 adhikaranas, according to Samkara; (3) 32 sutras and 11 adhikaranas, according to Ramanuja; (4) 31 sutras and 11 adhikaranas, according to Bhaskara; (5) 32 sutras and 12 adhikaranas, according to Srikantha; (6) 31 sutras and 11 adhikaranas, according to Baladeva. Samkara, Bhaskara and Baladeva omit sutra 9 in Nimbarka's commentary. 1 $r!. B. 1.1.32, p. 224, vol. 1.: — ' Nikhila-karaxta-bhutaaya Brahmayah svarupeodmtsandhanam, bhoktf-varga-ianrakatvdnuBandhanam, bhogya-bhogopa- karana-Aarirakatvanu-aandhanaii ceti trividham anusandhdnam upadeqfum ity- arthah' * Bh. B. 1.1.31, pp. 35-36. ' gK. B. 1.1.32, pp. 201-92, Part 3. « a.B. 1.1.31. FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyaya) SECOND QUARTER (Pada) Adhikarapa 1 : The section entitled 'Celebrity everywhere'. (Sutras 1-8) SUTRA 1 "(That which consists of mind is Brahman), because of the teaching of what is celebrated everywhere." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha Beginning: 'All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him. disappearing into him and breathing in him; — tranquil, let one medi- tate on him thus' (Chand. 3.14.1 1 ), Scripture continues: 'Consisting of mind, having the vital breath for his body' (Chand. 3.14.2 2 ). Here, the object which is to be meditated on as consisting of mind is to be understood as the Highest self, the cause of all, and not as the individual soul. Why? Because the highest self alone, celebrated in all the Vedantas, is taught in the above passages, viz. 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chand. 3.14.1). Vedanta -kaustubha Thus, in the first section, the concordance of the scriptural texts with regard to the holy Lord Vasudeva has been shown, — He who is the object of enquiry, the greatest Being, the cause of the origin and the rest of the world, having Scripture for His sole proof, omniscient, without an equal or a superior and the one mass of infinite auspicious qualities. Now, in the following two sections, the reverend teacher of the Veda is showing that those texts, — some of which indistinctly indicate the individual soul and the rest, and some of which distinctly do so, — all refer to Him alone. The Chandogas record the following: 'All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him, disappearing into him, and breathing in him; — tranquil, let one meditate (on him) thus. Now, a person consists of » i, R, Bh, B. * g, R, Bh, 6k, B. [stT. 1. 2. 1. 92 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] determination. According to what his determination is in this world, so does he become on departing hence. Let him form a determination. He who consists of mind, has the vital-breath for his body, is of the form of light ' (Chand. 3.14.1-2 a ) and so on. Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether the individual soul 2 should be understood as the object to be meditated on, possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest, or the Highest self. What is reasonable here ? (Prima facie view.) If it be suggested: The individual soul. Why? Because the individual soul is well-known to have the mind and the vital-breath as its instruments; because Scripture declares that Lord Brahman, the Supreme Being, has no connection with mind and the vital-breath, in the passage: 'Without the vital-breath, without mind, pure' (Mund. 2.1.2); and, finally, because having the heart for its abode as well as being atomic, stated in the passage: 'This is the soul 8 within the heart, smaller than a grain of rice, or a barley-corn' (Chand. 3.14.3), are possible in the case of the limited individual soul alone. If it be objected: of the six proofs, viz. scriptural statement, mark, text, topic, place and name, each succeeding one is weaker than the preceding one. Of these, scriptural statement means an independent statement, and mark means the power of words (to indicate some meaning). Now, here, the scriptural statement, viz. : 'All this, verily, is Brahman ' (Chand. 3.14.1), is of a greater force than the mark of the individual soul, viz. consisting of mind and the rest, it being mentioned first, (the rule being that of these six, each preceding one is of a greater force than each succeeding one). Hence, Brahman alone, mentioned above, is to be construed here as the object to be meditated on, — (we reply:) no, because as that text fulfils its purpose simply by teaching, as a means to the attainment of tranquillity, that everything has Brahman for its soul, thus: 'Tranquil, let one meditate ', so it is not concerned with laying down any injunction regarding the meditation on Brahman (here ends the original Prima facie view) . . . 1 This passage occurs also in Sat. Br. 10.6.3. li forms a part of the famous SStfdilya-vidyd, or the Doctrine of SQ^Uya. For a further account see footnote (5), p. 1078 f. * 'KfetrajAa, means 'Knower of the field', or the body, i.e. the soul, the conscious principle in the corporeal frame. 8 Correct quotation: 'Esa ma Stma . . . ' Vide Chand. 3.14.3, p. 158. [s(T. 1. 2. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDANTA-KAUSTITBHA 93 (Correct conclusion.) We reply: — The highest soul alone, possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest, is the object to be meditated on. Why ? "Because" the cause of the origin and the rest of the world, "celebrated everywhere", i.e. in all the Vedantas, "is taught" as the cause of all, as the soul of all, here in the text: 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chand. 3.14.1). Or, else, "because" the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the rest, "celebrated" in all the Vedantas as belonging to the Supreme Brahman, thus: 'Consisting of mind, leader of the vital-breath and the body (Mund. 2.2.7), 'This ether that is within the heart, — therein is the person, consisting of mind (Tait. 1.6), and so on, "are taught". Of these, 'consisting of mind' means ' capable of being apprehended by a purified mind ' ; ' having the vital-breath for the body' means 'being the support and the ruler of even the vital-breath ' ; ' without the vital-breath ' means ' abiding in- dependently of the vital-breath'; and 'without mind' means 'having knowledge not dependent on the mind '. Or, else, the text: 'All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him, disappearing into him, and breathing in him ; — tranquil, let one meditate (on him) thus' (Chand. 3.14.1) enjoins meditation, thus: 'Let one meditate on Brahman, the soul of all, in a tranquil spirit '. The text: ' Let him form a determination' (Chand. 3.14.1) is a repeti- tion (of the same injunction), with a view to proving that the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the rest belong to the very same Being, mentioned above, (viz. Brahman). Let one meditate on Brahman, the soul of all and possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest, — this is the sense of the text. Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether Brahman, indicated as the soul of all, is the individual soul, or the Highest self. What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: The individual soul. Why? Because, it alone can possibly assume the forms of all kinds of beings, Brahma and so on, due to karmas, based on beginningless nescience; while it is never possible for the Supreme Brahman to assume identity with all sorts of low or vile forms, since He is endowed with (the attributes of) omniscience, omnipotence, freedom from sins, freed on by nature from all faults and so on. The word 'Brahman' too, applies to the individual soul alone, it being endowed with great qualities (like knowledge and the like). And the origin and the rest of the world being due to karmas, it is reasonable to indicate the individual soul as their cause, — [SO. 1. 2. 1. 94 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] We reply: "Because of the teaching of what is celebrated every- where", i.e. the meaning of the word 'Brahman,' who is designated as the soul of all and as the cause of the origin and the rest of all, is the Highest Self alone. For this very reason, "everywhere", i.e. in the Vedantas, he is "taught" to be "celebrated" as the cause of the origin and the rest of the world — because of this; and also because it is impossible that the origin and the rest of the world can be due to the individual soul, since in the passages — "He desired: 'May I be many, may I procreate ' ... He created all this " (Tait. 2.6) and so on, the Supreme Lord alone is celebrated to be the cause of the world. This is stated in the 'Law of salvation' 1 . Beginning: '"Whence has arisen this entire world, consisting of the immovable and the movable, and to whom does it go during universal dissolution ? Tell me that, grandfather ! By whom has this world, together with the oceans, the sky, mountains, cloud, lands, fire and air, been made?'" (Maha. 12.6765-662); having stated: 'The scripture which was related by Bhrgu to Bharadvaja, who asked ' (Maha. 12. 6769C 3 ) ; having stated the origin of all beings thus : ' Of him who is called Narayana, who is unchangeable, the imperishable soul, who is unmanifest, unknowable, highor than prakrti;' 4 and having stated: 'Then, a lustrous, celestial lotus was created by the self-born. From that lotus arose Brahma, the Lord, consisting of the Veda' (Maha. 12.6779 C-89A 6 ), — the text designates Lord Krsna, Narayana, Brahman, as the cause of all sentient beings and non-sentient objects, thus: 'For he is difficult to be known, undoubtedly inconceivable in nature even by the perfected souls. He, verily, is Lord Visnu, cele- bcated to be infinite, abiding as the inter controller of all beings, difficult to be known by those who have not obtained the self, — who is the creator of this principle of egoism for the production of all beings, from whom arose the universe, about whom I have been asked by you here ' (Maha. 12.6784-86A 6 ). Hence, the Highest Self 1 Mokqa-dharma is the name of a section of the 12th book of the Maha- bhdrata, from Adhydya 174 to the end. * P. 604, lines 3-4, vol. 3. » Op. cit., line 7. * This is not traceable in any of the three editions, Asiatic Society, Vanga- vdal and Bombay. 8 P. 604, lines 17-18 (vol. 3). This verse is not found in the Bombay edition. * P. 604, lines 22-24. [SO. 1. 2. 2. ADH. 1.] VEDiNTA-KAUSTUBHA 95 alone is denoted by the word 'Brahman' here, and not the individual soul. 1 COMPARISON Ramanuja Reading same. He gives two alternative interpretations, which tally with the last two explanations of Srlnivasa. 2 SCTRA 2 "And because of the appropriateness of the attributes intended to be stated." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha And because the attributes, viz. 'consisting of mind,' 'having true resolves' and the rest, "intended to be stated" in the text: 'Consisting of mind, having the vital- breath for the body, of the form of light, having true resolves' (Chand. 3.14.2 s ) and so on, aro 'appropriate' on the part of Brahman alone. Vedanta-kaustubha As the attributes of 'having true resolves' and the rest, 'intended to be stated' as the peculiar attributes of Brahman in the passage: 'Consisting of mind, having the breath for the body, of the form of light, having true resolves, having the ether as the soul, having all desires, having all odours, 4 . . . having all tastes, pervading all this, unspeaking, indifferent' (Chand. 3.14.2) and so on, aro "appro- priate" on the part of Brahman alone, — so Brahman alone is under- stood in the above text. The adjective 'pervading all this' means that He has accepted 'all this' — i.e. the sentient and the non-sentient objects, ending with 'taste', — as His own; 'unspeaking' means that He abides in silence because of His unsurpassed graveness ; ' indifferent ' means that 'He has no concern '. 1 SHnivaaa gives altogether three explanations of this Sutra, the first of which tallies with the explanation of Nimbarka. * £rl. B. 1.2.1. Pp. 231 et seq. Part 1. » R, B. * The original text reads ' sarva-karma' after this. [SO. 1. 2. 3. 96 VEDINTA-PABIJATA-SAUBABHA adh. 1.] SCTRA 3 "But on account op inappbopbiateness, not the embodied (SOUL)." Vedanta -parijata -saurabha He who is possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest is the Supreme Being alone, and not the individual soul, because (the attributes like) ' consisting of mind ', ' having true re- solves ' and so on, are "inappropriate" on its part. VedSnta -kaustubha Brahman alone is to be understood as consisting of mind, for the purpose of meditation, and not "the embodied", i.e. the indivi- dual soul, possessing a body. Why ? Because the attributes of 'having true resolves' and the like are "inappropriate" on the part of the individual soul. Moreover, the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the rest too, are inappropriate on the part of the indivi- dual soul. Thus, the text says : ' Let him form a determination ' (Ch&nd. 3.14.1). Of what kind is he ? ' Consisting of mind ', again, ' having the vital-breath for his body '. These adjectives are not appropriate' on the part of the individual soul, because no such implication is involved hero, nor any purpose. But all these are appropriate on the part of the Highest self. Thus, when it is said : Let the worshipper, whether he desires for salvation, or for any particular fruit, 'form a determination', i.o. perform meditation or action, in a 'calm' spirit, the question arises : In reference to whom is he to perform meditation or action ? and in reply, the Highest Person, the soul of all, and indicated above in the passage : ' All this, verily, is Brahman' (Ch&nd. 3.14.1), is pointed out as the object to be meditated on. And, this text : ' Consisting of mind, having the vital-breath for the body' (Ch&nd. 3.14.2) and so on refers to Brahman. Hence the attributes of ' consisting of mind ' and the rest are not appropriate on the part of the individual soul. COMPARISON Srikantha Beading same, interpretation different. According to Srikantha, a new adhikarana begins with this sQtra (sutras 3-8), concerned with [stt. l. 2. 4. ADH. 1.] VEDiNTA-PiRIJiTA-SAUBABHA 97 the question whether a passage in the Maha-narayana-upanisad (Mahanar. 11.3) refers to NarSyana or to Siva. Thus : — ' (The passage refers to Siva, and not (to) the embodied (i.e. NarSyana), because (the attributes of being the Lord of the universe and the rest) are not appropriate (on the part of NarSyana) '.! SCTRA 4 " And because of the designation of object and agent." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha For this reason too, the object qualified by the adjectives 'con- sisting of mind ' and the rest is not the embodied soul, " because of the designation of object and agent" in the text: 'On departing hence, I shall reach him ' (Chand. 3.14.4 «). Vedahta -kaustubha For this reason, too, that which consists of mind and has breath for its body is not to be understood as the embodied soul. Why? " Because of the designation " of the embodied soul as the " agent ", i.e. as the worshipper, and " because of the designation " of the Highest Self as the 'object', i.e. as the object to be meditated on and obtained, in the passage : ' On departing hence, I shall reach him ' (Chand. 3.14.4). That is, 'I', or one desiring for salvation, 'shall reach', i.e. shall obtain, 'him', i.e. Brahman, mentioned before as possessed of the attributes of ' consisting of mind' and the rest, 'hence', i.e. after the fall of the body, after the destruction of the works which have begun to bear fruits. A worshipper who is endowed with such a right insight attains Brahman. COMPARISON Srikan|ha Reading same, interpretation different, viz. : ' (The supreme soul, viz. Siva, the object to be meditated on, is other than NarSyana), because of the designation of the object and the agent, (i.e. because l &K. B. 1.1.3, pp. 318 et seq., Part 4. * 6, R, Bh, B. 7 [SO. 1. 2. 5. 98 VEDlNTA-PlBIJATA-SAUBABHA ADH. 1.] Siva is designated to be the object to be worshipped, NarSyana, the worshipper)'. 1 SCTRA 5 " On account of the diffebenck of words." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha That which possesses the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the like is the Highest Self, different from the embodied soul, because in the text: 'This soul of mine within the heart' (Chand. 3.14.3, 4 2 ) the individual soul and the Highest Self are denoted by different words, viz. the genitive and the nominative respectively. Vedanta-kaustubha For this reason, too, that which possesses the attributes of con- sisting of mind and so on, is the highest self, different from the embodied soul. Why ? " On account of the difference of words ", i.e. because of another scriptural passage of kindred subject-matter, viz. 'Like a grain of rice, or a barley-corn, or a grain of millet, or the kernel of a grain of millet, such is the Golden Person within the self (Sat. Br. 10.6.3.2), there is " difference of words ", viz. the locative ' within the self' denotes the embodied self, while the nominative 'the Golden Person' denotes the Highest self. 8 COMPARISON Srikanfria Reading same, interpretation different, viz. ('Brahman, viz. Siva, is other than and superior to Narayana) on account of a particular word (or scriptural passage) (to that effect'). 4 i &K. B. 1.2.4, pp. 322-324, Part 4. » B,B. 8 Note that Nimbarka and SHnivdsa refer to two different passages here. * &K. B. 1.2.6. (Pp. 324-26, Part 4.) [80. 1. 2. 6. ADH. 1.] VEDlNTA-PlRUlTA-SATJBABHA 99 SCTRA 6 "And on account of Smrti." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha "And on account of the Smrti" text:— 'The Lord abides, O Arjuna! in the heart-region of all beings' (Gita 18.61 *), there is a difference between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. Vedanta-kaustubha ' " He who sees me everywhere, and sees everything in me, of him I will never lose hold, and he shall never lose hold of me " ' (Gita 6.30), '"He who, established in unity, worships me as abiding within all beings, that ascetic abides in me, under whatever circumstances he may live"' (Glta 6.31), '"There is nothing higher than me, Dha- nanjaya ! All this is strung on me, like gems on a string'" (Gita 7.7), '"And 1 abide within the heart of all, and from me memory, knowledge and their absence"' (Gita 15.15), '"The Lord abidos, O Arjuna ! in the heart-region of all, causing all beings to revolve by His mysterious power, as if mounted on a machine"' (Gita 18.61), ' "Because I excel the perishable and am superior evon to the imperish- able, I am celebrated in the world, and in the Veda as the Highest Person" ' (Gita, 15.18). The following scriptural texts too are referred to by the term "and" (in the sutra): 2 'The two unborn ones, the knower and the non-knower, the Lord and the non-Lord' (Svet. 1.9), 'The Lord of matter and souls, the rulor of the attributes' (Svet. 6.16), 'The eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious' (Svet. 6.13; Katha 5.13) and so on. From such Smrti and scrip- tural texts, it is to be known that there is a difference between the individual soul and Brahman. Thus, in this section, the difference between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul is indicated by the reverend author of the aphorisms in four aphorisms; 8 and this view is most reasonable, since it is established by both Smrti and Scripture. The Highest Self is ever-free, omniscient, independent, all-pervading » 6, R, Bh, B. * Note the different interpretations of the word 'Co' in the sutra, as given by Ntmb&rka and SHnivasa. According to the former, it simply means 'also', while according to the latter, 'on account of scriptural texts '. « Viz. Br. Su. 1.2.3-6. [su. 1. 2. 7. 100 VEDiNTA-PlRIJATA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.] without an equal or a superior, the soul of all and the controller of all. The individual soul, on the other hand, though of the nature of eternal knowledge, has, as is well-known, its attribute of knowledge enveloped by the beginningless maya, is subject to bondage and release, possessed of little knowledge, a part of Brahman, but through its aversion to the Lord, revolves through many births owing to the works done by itself. Non-difference also, established by the scriptural texts like: 'He is the self, thou art that' (Chand. 6.9.4, 6.10.3, etc.), 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chand. 3.14.1), 'This soul is Brahman' (Brh. 4.4.5) and so on, is most reasonable. Thus, the reverend author of the aphorisms will speak about the nature of difference and non- difference, as held by himself, under the aphorism: 'A part, on account of the designation of variety' (Br. Su. 2.3.42) and so on. We shall speak of it in detail in the same place. 1 COMPARISON Samkara Beading and interpretation same. But in conclusion, he adds his own view, viz. that this difference between the individual soul and Brahman is not real, but due to limiting adjuncts only. 2 Srikanfha Reading same, interpretation different, viz. 'On account of Smrti' (viz. Glta 11.9) Narayana is the worshipper — i.e. different from 6i ava. SOTRA 7 "If it be objected that on account of its occupying a smau. abode, and on account of the designation of that, (Brahman is) not (the object of meditation), (we eeply:) no, because (brahman) is to be conceived thus, as in the case of the ether." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha If it be objected that on account of its having a small abode, as mentioned in the text: 'This soul of mine within the heart' (Chand. 1 Vide V.K. 2.3.42. » g.B. 1.2.7, p. 265. » &K. B. 1.2.7, pp. 325-26, Part 4: [80. 1. 2. 7. ADH. 1.] VEDlNTA-KATJSTUBHA 101 3.14.3) ; also on account of the designation of its smallness in the text : 'Smaller than a grain of rice, or' (Chand. 3.14.3; Sat. Br. 10.6.3.2 1 ), (the object of meditation) here is not Brahman, — (We reply:) "Not so", because Brahman is to be meditated on in that way. Minuteness on the part of a great thing, however, fits in, as in the case of a window and the ether. Vedanta-kaustubha If it be objected: — Brahman cannot be understood here as the object of meditation. Why 1 " On account of its occupying a small abode and on account of the designation of that." That is, that which has a small abode, i.e. place, viz. the individual soul which is like the tip of the spoke of a wheel, is 'arbhakaukas', the state of that is 'arbhakaukastvam', on account of that, 2 — the resulting meaning being: 'on account of the characteristic mark of the individual soul'. That is to say, occupying a limited place, viz. the heart, is the attribute of the individual soul only, and not the attribute of Brahman. More- over, " on account of the designation " of smallness by that very term (viz. 'small'), in the passage: 'Smaller than a grain of rice, or a barley-corn' (Chand. 3.14.3; Sat. Br. 10.6.3.2), the individual soul alone is to be understood here, and not Brahman, — (We reply:) "No." Why? It is "because (Brahman) is to be conceived thus ", — i.e. " Because (Brahman) is to be conceived ", or to be meditated on, " thus ", i.e. as abiding within the heart, small in size, — that the Highest Self is designated in that way. And, hereby His omnipresence is not contradicted. For, He is designated to be minute with the object of designating a particular kind of medita- tion on Him as very subtle. Nor, again, does He become small in size (i.e. small like the heart) hereby, since the text: 'Greater than the earth, greater than the sky' (Chand. 3.14.3) speaks of the great- ness of the Lord. An analogous case is the following: Just as the ether, though all-pervasive, is spoken of as occupying a small place and as small in reference to the eye of a needle, so is Brahman, the topic of discussion, — this is the sense. i P. 806, line 18. 2 This explains the compound 'arbhakaukastvat' [str. l. 2. 8. 102 vedInta-pArijIta-saurabha adh. 1.] COMPARISON Sarnkara Beading and interpretation same. He points out that just as the Lord of the entire universe may be appropriately said to be the Lord of Ayodhya, so the Supreme Soul, abiding everywhere, may very well be denoted as abiding within the heart. 1 Ramanuja Reading same, interpretation of the word 'vyomavac ca' different, viz : — ' (The Lord is described to be) like the ether as well (i.e. all-pervading as well, in that very passage, viz. Chand. 3.14.3 2 )\ Hence the Lord is not really minute by nature, but is simply designated to be so for the purpose of meditation. Srikanfha Reading and literal interpretation same, though this topic is different, as noted above. 8 Baladeva Reading same, interpretation of the word 'vyomavac ca' different, viz: '(The Lord though atomic as abiding within the heart of men, is yet all-pervading) like the ether (as declared by the same passage, viz. Chand. 3.14.3 *)'. And this is possible because the Lord is possessed of inconceivable powers. SCTRA 8 " If it be objected that (if Bbahman webe to dwell WITHrN THE HEART, THEN) THESE FOLLOWS EXPERIENCE (OF PLEASURES AND PAINS), (WE reply:) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE." Vedanta-parijata-saurabjha If it be objected that owing to His connection with all hearts, ' there will follow experience " of pleasure and pain on the part of i 6.B. 1.2.7, p. 266. * &rl. B. 1.2.7, p. 237, vol. 1. » &£. B. 1.2.7, p. 327, Part 1. * G.B. 1.2.7, p. 114, Chap. 1. Note the difference from Ramanuja. [St!. 1. 2. 8. ADH. 1.] VEDINTA-KAUSTTTBHA 103 Brahman, as on the part of the individual soul, — (we reply:) no such objection can be raised, because there is an absolute difference between the individual soul and Brahman, as the soul is an enjoyer of the fruits of the works done by itself, while Brahman is ever-free from sins. Vedanta -kaustubha If it be objected: Owing to its connection with a single heart, there results experience of pleasures and pains on the part of the individual soul. Owing to His connection with all hearts simul- taneously, there certainly results experience of all pleasures and pains everywhere on the part of the all-pervading Highest Self. If this be so, then the Highest Self, as the enjoyer of pleasures and pains, will inevitably become subject to all sorts of faults, as the individual soul itself is. Hence even the Supreme Being will be subject to karmas, — (We reply:) "No." " On account of difforonco( vaisesyat) ". The word "vaisesyat" is formed by adding the suffix 'syafi' to the word 'visesa' in an identical sense, (viz. difference) or to indicate excessive difference. That the individual soul is an enjoyer of the fruits of works performed by itself and the Supreme Soul is just the opposite is established in Scripture, in accordance with the Smrti- passage: 'Of these, He who is the Supreme Self is said to be eternal and free from the properties of matter * He is not affected even by the fruit, as a lotus-leaf is not touched by water. The active self, on the other hand, is another, who is liable to release and bondage' (Maha. 12.13754-13755 2 ), and the declaration of the Lord Himself: 'Works do not affect me; I have no desire for fruits of works ' (Gita 4.14). Thus, on account of an absolute difference between these two, it follows that the individual soul alone experiences pleasures and pains, and not the Supreme Soul. Hence it is established that that which consists of mind and has the breath for its body, is none but the Highest Self. Here ends the section entitled 'Celebrity everywhere* (1). 1 One line omitted, viz. 'Sa hi Narayatyu jfteyah sarvdlmd purufo hi safr '. * P. 852, lines 9-10, vol. 3. [SO. 1. 2. 8. 104 VEDANTA-KATTSTUBHA ADH. 1.] COMPARISON Sarpkara Reading and literal interpretation same. Here, too, he is forced to add his usual explanation that the difference between the individual soul and Brahman is not real, but only phenomenal. 1 RSmanuja Interpretation of the word 'vaisesyat' different. According to Nimbarka, 'vaisesyat ' means 'on account of the difference of nature between the individual soul and Brahman'; while according to Ramanuja, it means 'on account of the difference of the cause of enjoyment ' 2 ; i.e. it is not abiding within the body which is the cause of undergoing pleasure and pain, but being subject to karmas, which is never possible in the case of the Lord. 3 Bhaskara Reading and interpretation same. The example cited is appro- priate — Simply because the Lord abides within the heart, it does not follow that He shares its experiences, for there is no rule that co- existence and the consequent inter-relation imply the sharing of the same attributes. The ether, e.g. though in connection with a burning place, does not burn itself. 4 Srikaotha Reading and literal interpretation same, though the topic is different, as noted above. 6 * IB. 1.2.8, p. 268. * ' Hetuvaiiesy&t.' » grl. B. 1.2.8, p. 238, vol. 1. « Bh. B. 1.2.8, p. 40. * &K. B. 1.2.8, pp. 327 et seg., Part 4. [SO. 1. 2. 9. ADH. 2.] VEDlNTA-PiRLTXTA-SAURABHA 105 Adhikaraoa 2: The section entitled 'The eater'. (Sutras 9-10) SUTRA 9 " The eater (is Brahman), on account of the comprehension (or taking, i.e. devouring) of the movable and the im- movable." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha In the text: 'He to whom both the Brahmana and the Ksatriya are the food and death the condiment, who thus knows where He is ? ' (Katha 2.25 1 ), the eater is the Lord, the Highest Person, " on account of the comprehension (or taking, i.e. devouring) " 2 of the food which has death for its condiment, i.e. of the Universe, consisting of the movable and the immovable, implied by the terms 'Brahmana' and 'Ksatriya'. Vedanta-kaustubha In the preceding section, after having shown that the text: 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chand. 3.14.1) and so on refers to Brahman, the author has shown also the absence of any experience of pleasure and pain due to karma on the part of Brahman. Now, by showing that the text: 'He, of whom the Brahmana' (Katha 2.25) and so on refers to Him, he removes the suspicion that, as before, He cannot be an eater of the movable and the immovable. 3 In the Katha- valk" it is recorded: 'He, to whom both the Brah- mana and the Ksatriya are the food and death the condiment, who thus knows where He is?' (Katha 2.25). Here by the word 'food' edible objects are understood, and by the words 'of whom', indicating connection, an eater is understood. A doubt arises, viz. whether the eater here is fire, or the individual soul, or the Supreme Soul, since here all the three have been referred to before. What is reasonable i $K. B. 1.2.8, pp. 327 et seq.. Part 4. * It is not clear what Nimbdrka means exactly by the term '■grahana' 1 here. It may mean appropriately both 'understanding' and 'taking or devour- ing'. Thus, Brahman is the eater, because the movable and the immovable are understood as the food here; or because, the movable and the immovable are devoured as the food here. The same remarks apply to Srinivasa's interpretation. 3 I.e. it may be thought that since Brahman is not an enjoyer, as shown above, He cannot be an eater too. [s(T. 1. 2. 10. 106 vedanta-pabijata-saubabha adh. 2.] here ? If it be suggested: First, let fire be the eater here, because it is well-known to have the power of burning the Brahmana and the Ksatriya; and because the scriptural text: — 'Fire is the eater of food' (Brh. 1.4.6) declares so. Or, let the individual soul be the eater, because it is well-known to be an enjoyer; because the scriptural text: 'Of the two, the one tastes sweet berry' (Svet. 4.6; Mund. 3.1.1) declares so; and, finally, because in the preceding section, (viz. Br. Su- 1.2.8) it alone has been established to be an enjoyer. In accordance with the negative text: 'Without eating' (6vet. 4.6; Mund. 3.1.1), as well as on the ground of the negation of experience in the preceding section (viz. Br. Su. 1.2.8), the Highest Self cannot be understood as the eater here, — We reply: Here the eater can possibly be the Highest Self alone. Whence is this known ? " On account of the comprehension (or taking, i.e. devouring *) of the movable and the immovable," i.e. because here the movable and the immovable are understood to be the food. If it be objected that the words 'movable' and 'immovable' are not found here, — (we reply:) It may be so, (yet that does not falsify our view), because by the terms 'Brahmana' and 'K§atriya', the movable and the immovable are understood metaphorically; and because there being a natural connection between death and the movable and the immovable, that food which has death for its condiment, viz. the movable and the immovable, is understood here. Hence the eater is the Highest Self, the destroyer of the Universe, — this is the resulting meaning, for neither fire, nor the individual soul, can possibly be the eater of the entire world. The text: 'Without eating' (Svet. 4.6; Mund. 3.1.1) denies any experience of the fruits of works on the part of the Lord. SUTRA 10 "And ok account of the topic." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The eater is the Lord, the Highest Person, because He alone is mentioned as the topic of discussion in the text 'The great, the all- pervading ' (Katha 2.22 «). 1 See footnote (2), previous page. 2 B, SK. [SU. 1. 2. 11. ADH. 3.] VEDINTA-PIBIJITA-SAURABHA 107 Vedanta-kaustubha As the Highest Self is mentioned as the topic of discussion in the texts: 'Knowing the great, all-pervasive self (Katha 2.22), 'By him is (He) attainable, whom alone he chooses' (Katha 2.23; Mund. 3.2.23), and as a peculiar mark, of the Lord, viz. unintelligibleness, is mentioned in the passage: 'Who thus knows where He is?' (Katha 2.25), it is established that the eater is the Highest Self alone. Here ends the section entitled 'The eater' (2). Adhikarana 3: The section entitled 'The cave'. (Sutras 11-12) SCTRA 11 " The souls entered into the cave (ake the individual soul and the Supreme Soul), because that is seen." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha In the text: 'There are two, drinking of righteousness in the world of good deeds, entered into the cave' (Katha 3.1 1 ), the two souls, entered into the cave, should be known to be two sentient beings, viz. the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. Why ? " Be- cause that is seen", i.e. because it is found that this section desig- nates the entering of these two alone, — of the Supreme Soul in the passage: 'Him, who is difficult to see, who has entered into the hidden, who is hidden in the cave' (Katha 2.12 2 ); and of the individual soul in the passage: 'She, who arises with the vital-breath, who is Aditi, who is made of the deities, who, entering into the cave, abides therein, who was manifested through the elements ' (Katha 4.7 8 ). Vedanta -kaus tubha It has been pointed out above that the Supreme Soul, the topic of discussion and the object to be meditated on, is the eater of the movable and the immovable, and that He is difficult to be known, as declared by the text: 'Who thus knows' (Katha 2.25). Now, by i S, R, Bh, &C, B. * S. R. Bh, &£, B. * », B. [SO. 1. 2. 11. 108 vedXnta-katjstubha adh. 3.] teaching the following attributes of the Lord — viz. 'being easily attainable'; 'being easily knowable' and the rest — which result from His close association (with the individual soul a ), — to one who desires for salvation, who desires to attain His nature, who desires to know Him, and who is submerged in the pit of mundane existence consisting of the movable and the immovable, the author is showing that the text: 'Righteousness' (Katha 3.1) and so on refers to the Lord. Immediately after the above-quoted text, we find the following in the Katha-valli: 'There are two, drinking of righteousness in the world of good deeds, entered into the cave, in the highest upper region. Those who know Brahman speak of them as " light " and " shade ", as well as those who maintain the five sacred fires, 2 and those too who thrice kindle the Naciketas fire ' s (Katha 3.1). Here a doubt arises as to whether here buddhi and the individual soul are designated as entered into the cave, or the individual soul and the Supreme Soul ? What is reasonable here ? If it be suggested : Buddhi and the individual soul, — because in accordance with the statement: 'Entered into the cave' (Katha 3.1), entering into a cave is impossible on the part of the Supreme Soul who is all-pervasive; because it is impossible for the Supreme Being who has all His desires fulfilled to be the en j oyer of the fruits of works, as stated in the passage: 'Drinking of righteousness' (Katha 3.1); because any connection with the ' world of good deeds ', — i.e. with the world where one enjoys the fruits of the works done by one's self, viz. the body generated by works, — is impossible on His part ; and, finally, because a question is found, seeking to know the individual soul as different from buddhi, viz. '"There is this doubt when a man is dead: some saying, 'He is', others, 'He is not'. This I should know, as taught by you"' (Katha 1.20 *). Hence, these two alone (viz. buddhi and individual soul) are established by this text, — 1 I.e. the Lord abides with the individual soul in the same place, viz. the heart, and as such is easily knowable and attainable by it. 2 Viz. Anvdharya-pacana or Daksipa, Qarhapatya, Ahavamya, Sabhya, and Awuathya. M.W., p. 677, Col. 3. * Vide M.W., p. 458, Col. 2. * The sense is: Naciketd wants to know here what happens to the soul after death, i.e. he wants to know the self as distinct from the body, buddhi and so on. Hence, in reply, Yama must speak of the individual soul and buddhi, and as suoh the passage in question must deal with these two alone. [SO. 1. 2. 11. ADH. 3.] VEDANTA-KATJSTUBHA 109 We reply : The souls entered into the cave, viz. the heart, are two sentient beings alone. If it be objected : The entering of the individual soul stands to reason, since it is atomic; but entering into a cave is not appropriate on the part of the Supreme Soul who is all-pervasive, and hence the above objection remains in force, — (we reply:) No. " Because that is seen." That is, because in this very Upanjsad, the text: ' The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, abides within the soul, the Lord of the past and the future' (Katha 4.12) enjoins the Supreme Soul to be looked upon as abiding within the caves (i.e. hearts) of His sincere devotees in accordance with their wishes, though He Himself is all-pervading; because this is found in the texts: ' Hidden in the cave, dwelling in the abyss ' (Katha 2.12), ' He who knows him, hidden in the cave' (Tait. 2.1.1); and, lastly, because in the text : ' She, who arises with the vital-breath, who is Aditi, who is made of the deities, who, entering into the cave abides therein, who was manifested through the elements' (Katha 4.7), the individual soul is designated as entering into the cave. Moreover, in the text: ' Drinking of righteousness ' (Katha 3.1), one being ascertained to be a sentient being as the enjoyer of the fruits of works, the other too must be understood to be a sentient being alone, because we find that in ordinary life whenever a number is mentioned, beings of the same class are meant. When, e.g. it is said ' Look out for a second for this cow', people look out for a cow only, and not for a horse or an ass. This is established in the Maha-bhasya. To the objection, viz. that a question is found which seeks to know the individual soul as different from buddhi, — (we reply:) the reply to this question is something else, and not this text. It cannot be said also that there is anything inconsistent in the ' drinking of righteousness' (Katha 3.1), since the statement: 'Drinking of righteousness' (Katha 3.1) is justifiable, just like the statement: ' Men with umbrellas are going ' ; 1 since it is possible to say that while the individual soul drinks, the other (viz. the Lord) causes it to drink, 1 That is, referring to a crowd of hurrying people, we often say : 'Men with umbrellas are going ', though really only some of them are carrying umbrellas, and not all. Similarly, here too, when it is said: 'The two drinking ', etc. what is really meant is that only one (viz. the individual soul) is drinking, and not the other (viz. Brahman). [SO. 1. 2. 12. 110 vedanta-pIruAta-saubabha adh. 3.] and is as such the causative agent; * and since it is well-known every- where that the Supreme Lord first experiences the fruits of the works which are performed by one who is whole-heartedly devoted to Him, and are entrusted to Him. Hereby, it is explained also how the Supreme Being can abide in a body generated by works. The sense is that just as 'shade' can be removed by 'light' and not 'light' by 'shade', so the 'light' and the 'shade' (in the above text) are none but Brahman and the individual soul, the independent and the dependent. Sarnkara and Bhaskara Interpretation of the phrase ' tad-darsanat ' different, viz.: ' Because it is seen (that numerals denote beings of the same nature) '. 2 SCTRA 12 "And on account of specification." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha The individual soul and the Supreme Being alone are understood here as entered into the cave, because in this section those two alone are specified as the object to be worshipped and the worshipper, as the object to be known and the knower, and so on, in the texts : ' By knowing the knower of what is born from Brahman, 8 the deity to be worshipped, by revering (him), he goes to everlasting peace' (Katha 1.17 *), ' The bridge for sacrificers ' (Katha 3.2 B ) and so on. Vedanta-kaustubha The individual soul and the Supreme Soul are to be understood as entered within the cave " also because of the specification " of those two alone. The sense is that in this treatise (viz. the Katha- upanisad), the individual soul and the Supreme Soul alone are specified as that which approaches and the goal approached, as the thinker 1 That is, Brahman is not really an agent or drinker here, but only instigates the other to drink, He is said to be drinking in this sense alone. * 6.B. 1.2.12, p. 272, Bh.B. 1.2.12, p. 41. * Correct quotation: 'Brahmaja-jAa\ Vide C.S.S. ed., p. 8. 'Brahmaja- j&a' may be interpreted also as 'Brahmajai casau jnaicetV. * B. *Op.eU. [str. 1. 2. 13. ADH. 4.] VEDINTA-PARIJATA-SAUBABHA 111 and the object thought, in the passages: 'Know the soul to be the charioteer, and the body the chariot' (Katha 3.3), 'He reaches the end of the road, that supreme place of Visnu' (Katha 3.9), ' Him, who is difficult to be seen, who has entered into the hidden, who is hidden in a cave, who dwells in the abyss, ancient, — by thinking him God, through the study of the Yoga of what relates to the self, the wise man discards joy and sorrow' (Katha 2.12) and so on. Hence, it is established that the individual soul and the Supreme Soul alone are to be understood hore as entered into the cave, and not buddhi and the individual soul. Here ends the section entitled ' The cave ' (3). Adhikarana 4: The section entitled 'What is within'. (Sutras 13-18) SCTRA 13 " That which is within (the eye is Bbahman), on account of fitting in." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha In the passage: 'That person who is seen within the eye' (Chand. 4.15.1 *), the Person " within" the eye is the Highest Person alone, and not any one else. Why? Because the attributes of 'being the self', 'being fearless', 'being the uniter of all lovely things', and so on, — mentioned in the passages: ' " He is the self", said he, " This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman " ' (Chand. 4.15.1 2 ), ' They call it the " uniter of lovely things " ' (Chand. 4.15.2),—" fit in " in the case of the Highest Person alone. Vedanta-kaustubha Now, by showing that the text: 'That Person who is seen within the eye' (Chand. 4.15.1) and so on refers to Brahman, the author removes the doubt, viz: — In the previous passage (viz. Katha 3.1), the individual soul and the Supreme Soul may be understood, since the dual number is found used. But here, since the singular number * 6, R, Bh, &K, B. » 6, B, Bh. [SO. 1. 2. 13. 112 VEDlHTA-KATTSTUBHA ADH. 4.] is used, who (viz. the individual soul or the Supreme Soul) is to be understood ? We read under the Upakosala-vidya 1 in the Ch&ndogya : — " ' That Person who is seen within the eye, he is the soul", said he, " This is the immortal, the fearless, that is Brahman. Hence, even if they pour clarified butter or water on it, it goes away to both sides' " (Chand. 4.15.1) and so on. Here, a doubt arises as to whether the person, taught as abiding within the eye, is the reflected self (i.e. the image of a person reflected on the eye of another), or the individual soul, or the presiding deity of the sense-organ (viz. the eye), or the Supreme Soul. The prima facie view is as follows : In accordance with the statement 'is seen', he may be the reflected self, because the reflected self alone is well-known to be perceivable, while the individual soul and the rest are not perceivable. If it be said that here 'seeing' means scriptural insight (and not actual, physical perceiving), — then the individual soul may be that which is 'within' the eye, since it, as the perceiver of colour and the rest, is in proximity to the eye. 1 Or, the presiding deity of the eye is denoted by the word 'person' in accordance with the scriptural passage: 'Through his rays he is stationed herein' (Brh. 5.5.2), and because the all-pervasive Being cannot possibly abide within the eye. With regard to it, we reply: "That which is within", i.e. the being who is within the eye, is the Supreme Soul alone. Why? " On account of fitting in ", i.e. because the attributes of 'being the self, 'fearlessness', and so on, " fit in " in the case of the Supreme Soul alone. Although 'being the Self and the rest are not incompatible with the real nature of the individual soul, yet when the term 'Brah- man' (in the text) can be understood in its primary sense, it is not proper to take it as implying some other sense. Moreover, 'fearless- ness ' , too, is not appropriate in the case of any one, other than Brahman, as known also from the text: 'Through fear of Him the wind blows, through fear of Him the sun rises, through fear of Him fire and Indra, and death as fifth, speed along' (Tait. 2.8.1); and further because the attributes of ' being the uniter of all lovely things' and the 1 I.e. it is the soul which really perceives colour, etc. and not the eye itself, but the soul perceives them through the eye, and is as such in close proximity to the eye. Hence, as the soul is situated very near to the eye, it is called the person within the eye. [sO. 1. 2. 14. ADH. 4.] VEDlNTA-PiRMATA-SAUBABHA 113 rest, mentioned in the sacred text: 'They call this "the uniter of all lovely things" 1 , because all lovely things come together to him' (Chand. 4.15.2), 'He is also "the leader to all blessing" 2 because he leads to all blessings' (Chand. 4.15.3), 'He also is "the leader to light " 3 , because he shines in all the worlds' (Chand. 4.15.4), "fit in" in the case of the Supreme Soul alone. 'Samyadvama' implies one from whom the 'vamas', i.e. the fruits of karmas 'come together', i.e. one who is the cause of the rise of all fruits of karmas. This very thing is stated in the above text thus: — 'Because', i.e. since, 'the lovely things' 'come together', i.e. arise from 'this', i.e. the Person within the eye, the cause. In the text 'He is also the 'vamani', the 'vamani' implies one who 'leads', i.e. causes people, to attain the ' vamas ' or auspicious objects. This very thing is stated in the passage : 'Because he leads to all blessings'. In the text 'He also is the bhamani', the ' bhamani' implies one who leads to the 'bhamas', i.e. one who manifests all objects. This very thing is stated in the text: 'Because he shines in all the worlds', — this is the meaning of the text. SCTRA 14 "And on account of the designation of place." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha "And on account of the designation of the place" of the Supreme Soul, in the text: 'He who abiding within the sun' (Brh. 3.7.18*), the Person within the sun is none but He. Vedanta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. How can an all-pervading being be designated as occupying a small locality, the reverend author of the aphorisms replies here : The Person within the eye can be the Supreme Soul alone. Why ? "On account of the designation of place", i.e. because of the designa- tion of the abode of the Lord, the Highest Person alone, the cause of all causes, the inner soul of all, and the object to be meditated by all ; because one who occupies one part cannot properly dwell in another. 1 Samyadvama. * Vamani. 3 Bhamani. 4 S, B, Bh, I$K, B. 8 [sty. l. 2. 15. 114 VEDlNTA-PlRIjiTA-SATTRABHA ADH. 4.] If it be objected: How can an all-pervading being abide in a small locality, — (we reply:) No inconsistency whatsoever is involved here. Just as fire, though all-pervading, becomes visible in clouds and the rest in the form of lightning and so on through its own greatness, so the Lord, though all-pervading, becomes visible in the eye and the rest through His own special powers, for the sake of fulfilling the desire of His devotees. The words "and so on " mean: — On account of the designation of the form of the Supreme Soul, suitable to Him, and fit for abiding in a place, 1 celebrated in the following passages: — 'Now, this Golden Person who is seen within the sun, has a golden beard, golden hair' (Chand. 1.6.6), 'He sees the Person, lying in the city, who is higher than the highest aggregate of souls ' (Prasna 5.5). 'The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, smokeless like light' (Katha 4.13) and so on; i.e. on account of the designation of the form of the Lord by the expression 'The Person who is seen' 2 (Chand. 4.15.1). By the term "and" His power of manifesting Himself in forms, as desired, in the eye, in the heart and tho like, is indicated. SCTRA 15 "On account also or the mention only of what is charac- terized BY PLEASURE." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha That which is within the eye is the Supreme Being alone, "on account also of the mention of what is characterized by pleasure" in the passage: 'Pleasure is Brahman, the ether is Brahman' (Chand. 4.10.48). Vedanta-kaustubha The Person within the eye is the Highest Person alone, the cause of the world, and not any one else. Why? "On account also of the mention of what is characterized by pleasure." That is, in the * I.e. unless the Lord has a form, He cannot abide anywhere. Hence, the body of the Lord enables Him to abide in the eye and so on. * I.e. that Person within the sun has a form is evident from the word 'seen ', for a bodiless being cannot be seen. 3 6, R, Bh, SK, B. [SO. 1. 2. 16. ADH. 4.] VEDiNTA-PiRIJATA-SATJRABHA 115 introductory text: 'The vital-breath, is Brahman, pleasure is Brahman, the ether is Brahman' (Chand. 4.10.4), pleasure that is Brahman, i.e. Brahman characterized by pleasure, is mentioned, and that alone is referred to here. SCTRA 16 "Also fob that very reason, that is Brahman." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha "That", i.e. pleasure, is "Brahman ", i.e. Brahman alone is charac- terized by pleasure. Why ? On account also of the text, establishing their mutual specification l , viz. 'What, verily, is pleasure, that is the ether ; what is the ether, that is pleasure' (Chand. 4.10.5 2 ). Vedanta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. The word 'pleasure' conventionally denotos wordly pleasure, so how can it be said that Brahman is characterized by pleasure ? — the reverend teacher of the Veda replies here: "That is Brahman. " This means that in that introductory text, Brahman alone, characterized by pleasure, is mentioned and not worldly pleasure. Why ? " Also for that very reason," i.e. on account also of the text intimating their mutual specification, viz. 'What, verily, is pleasure that is the ether; what is the ether, that is pleasure' (Chand. 4.10.5), for worldly pleasure canrot consistently refer to an all-pervading substance — denoted by the term 'ether' — as non-different from itself. COMPARISON Saipkara, etc. This Sutra is omitted by Samkara, Bhaskara and Baladeva. Ramanuja Reading different, viz. 'Ata-eva ca sa Brahma'. Interpretation too different, viz. 'For that very reason (i.e. because the ether is characterized by pleasure), that (viz. the ether) is Brahman '. 8 1 I.e. ka (pleasure) (jualifiew lcha (ether) and vice versa. « R, 6K. » 6rt. B. 1.2.8, pp. 252-253, Part 1. [80. 1. 2. 17. 116 VEDANTA-PlRUlTA-SAUBABHA ADH. 4.] Srikanfha Reading different, viz. 'Ata-eva sa Brahma'. Interpretation too different, viz. exactly like Ramanuja's. 1 SCTRA 17 "Also ok account of the mention of the path of one who has heard the upanisad." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha " The path", called 'the path of gods', "of one who has heard the Upanisad" is celebrated in another scriptural text, viz. 'Now those who seek the soul by austerity, chastity, faith and knowledge, win the sun by the northern path. That, verily, is the abode of the vital- breaths, that is immortal, that is fearless, that is the highest goal. From that they do not return' (Prasna 1.10 2 ). "On account also of the mention" of that very "path" here in the text: 'They pass over to light ' (Ghand. 4.15.5 3 ), the Person within the eye is none but the Highest Person. 4 Vedanta-kaustubha For this reason, too, the person within tho eye is the Suprome Soul, — so says the reverend author of the aphorisms. That through which bondage is broken is Upanisad, the know- ledge of the Supreme Soul; or that which leads one to attain the Supreme Soul is Upanisad, the knowledge of the Supreme Soul. The treatise relating to that is also Upanisad. "&rutopanisatka" is one by whom the Upanisad has been directly heard from a teacher; he is a knower of Brahman, the Mysterious. "The path" which, as cele- brated in another Scripture and in the Smrtis, belongs to him, i.e. is his way to attaining Brahman who is established in the Upanisads, — that very path is mentioned here too as belonging to one who knows the person within the eye. For this reason too, i.e. "on account i SK. B. 1.2.16, p. 360, Port 4. » 3, K, Bh. a g, r, Bh, B. * That is, the worshipper of the person within the eye follows the same path followed by the worshipper of Brahman. This proves that the person within the eye is Brahman. [sO. 1. 2. 17. ADH. 4.] VBDlNTA-KATTSTUBHA 117 of the mention of the path of one who has heard the Upanisad", the person within the sun is the Supreme Self, — this is the sense. Thus, the path, which is said to be followed by a knower, — so that he may attain Brahman, — in another scriptural text, viz. 'Now, those who seek the soul by austerity, chastity, faith and knowledge, win the sun by the northern path. That, verily, is the abode of the vital-breaths, that is immortal, that is fearless, that is the highest goal. From that they do not return' (Prasna 1.10), as well as in the Smrti passage, viz. 'Fire, light, day, the bright fortnight, the six months of the sun's northern progress, — through these do the knowers of Brahman go to Brahman on departing' (Gita 8.24), — that very path is said to belong to one who knows the person within the eye, in the following passage : 'Now, whether they perform obsequies in the case of such a porson, or not, (the dead) pass over to light, from light to the day, from the day to the waxing fortnight, from the waxing fortnight to the six months during which the sun moves northwards, from the months to the year, from the year to the sun, from the sun to the moon, from the moon to lightning. Then there is a non-human Person. He leads them to Brahman. This is the path of the gods, the path to Brahman. Those who go by it do not return to this human whirlpool, — they return not' (Chand. 4.15.5-6). Hence, the person within the sun is none but the Supreme Soul. The meaning of tho text (viz. Prasna 1.10) is as follows: — ' Now', i.e. after the fall of the body, they 'win', i.e. attain the sun, 'by the northern path', i.e. through the path beginning with light and so on. Then, through the moon and the rest, in the order to be designated hereafter, 1 they attain the nature of Brahman. By doing what ? Through the three kinds of 'austerity', mentioned by the Lord, 2 or else through the 'austerity' which is the special duty of a Vana- prastha 8 and a Samnyasin, 4 both being primarily given to austerity ; i See below, p. 119. Vide also V.K. 4.3.5. a Vide Gita 17.14-16, where three kinds of austerity (tapas) are spoken of, viz. SSrJra, VSn-maya and Manasa. These, again, may be of three kinds, viz. satlvika, rajasa and tdmasa. Vide 17.10-22. 3 A Brahmin in the third stage of life, who has passed through the stages of a student and house-holder and has abandoned his life and family for an ascetio life in the forest. * A Brahmin in the fourth stage of life, a religious mendicant, who has given up all earthly concerns. [SO. 1. 2. 17. 118 VEDANTA-KAT7STUBHA ADH. 4.] 'through faith', i.e. through vidya, which is a mental disposition given to the worship of the feet of the teacher, i.e. through meditation, arising from the hearing and the thinking of the Vedanta, and men- tioned in the text: 'The self should be meditated on' (Brh. 2.4.5; 4.5.6), — one should, seeking the self, meditate on it, — this is the grammatical construction. By the phrase: 'through chastity', the text shows the particular stage of life which is congenial to the hearing, the thinking and the rest of the Vedanta. By chastity and the like, not only the duties, incumbent on special stages of life, are to be understood. That those who are destitute of any devotion for Brah- man, but merely belong to one or other of the stages of life and are devoted to the duties, incumbent thereon, return once more and attain the world, is declared by the reverend Parasara in a passage, which begins: 'The Prajapatya is for the Brahmanas' and ends: 'The Brahma is declared in Smrti to be for the Samnyasins'. That those who, among these, are devoted to the Supreme Brahman, attain His world, is mentioned in the passage: 'Those ascetics who are devoted to Brahman alone, who ever meditate on Brahman, to them belong that supreme place, which, verily, the wise see'. Hence, the Vana-prastha and the rest should be understood as implying devotion to the Supreme Brahman, (and not as mere duties incum- bent on different stages of life). By 'chastity' is meant here the religious duties pursued by the Naisthikas * who lead a life of chastity and are absolutely free from all desires for enjoyment, here or here- after. The sense is that the search for Brahman should properly be made through such a permanent vow 2 of 'chastity'. The sacred duty called 'chastity' is stated by the all-knowing 'Law of Salvation' 8 under the section called 'Varsneya-adhyatma', thus: 'This unbroken chastity which is the form of Brahman is higher than all religious practices. By it, (people) reach the highest goal' (Maha. 12.7770 4 ). Under the section treating of instruction, 1 A Naiefhika is a perpetual religious student, who observes the vow of ohastity. M.W., p. 570, Col. 1. * I.e. ' Brahma-c&rya' (= chastity) in the ordinary sense of the term means temporary chastity, which a student has to observe so long an he has not entered the stage of a house-holder. But here the term means permanent chastity which a Naiephika, e.g. practises. * Mokaa-dharma. * P. 640, line 40, vol. 3, Asiatic Society ed. [stJ. 1. 2. 17. ADH. 4.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 119 it is said: 'Listen, Father Yudhisthira, to the merits of chastity. He who leads a life of chastity from birth to death, and practises the "Great Vow", there is nothing, know, King, that is unattainable by him. Many millions of Vrsis dwell in the world of Brahman, those who are truthful, ever self-controlled, leading a life of chastity. Chas- tity is a supreme duty, honoured in all stages of life, and if resorted to, chastity burns, King, all sins', and so on. In accordance with the scriptural text, viz.: 'Desiring which people practice chastity, that word I tell you in brief (Katha 2.15), as well as in accordance with the statement by the Lord, viz. : ' " Desiring which people practise chastity, that word I will tell you in brief" ' (Glta, 8.11), chastity alone is the chief means to the supreme region. The repetition of the means, to be mentioned hereafter in the aphorism: 'Repetition, more than once, because of teaching' (Br. SQ. 4.1.1), may also be resorted to by a Naisthika. The text 'This verily' (last portion of Prasna 1.10) and so on indicates Brahman, who is to be attained through the path which begins with light, and to be enquired into. (The meaning of the text — Chand. 4.15.6-6 — is as follows:) 'Now', i.e. when he is dead, whether people perform proper funeral ceremonies or do not perform them, in either case, the wise, un- obstructed in their progress, and wishing to attain the nature of the Lord, attain the presiding deity of light, through that the day; after that, they successively attain, the presiding deities of fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of the sun, the year, the wind or the world of gods, the sun, the moon, lightning the worlds of the king of water (i.e. Varuna) and Indra, then the world of Prajapati. After that, breaking through the sphere of prakrti, they attain the Viraja, the best of rivers and forming the boundary of the supreme place. After having crossed that river and having entered the world of Visnu, — called 'supreme void', 'supreme place', 'world of Brah- man' and so on, having the stated marks, 1 and unapproachable by those who are averse to the Lord, — they roam about, attaining the nature of Brahman, — this is the resulting meaning. This we shall expound in details in the fourth chapter. 2 'This is the path of Gods', because it is characterized by having Gods as the conductors. It is the 'path to Brahman', because it is the way to Brahman, the object » Vide V.K. 1.1.1. * Vide V.K. 4.3.5. [SO. 1. 2. 18. 120 VEDANTA-FAKIJATA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.] to be enquired into and the object to be attained. "Those who go by it "do not return ', i.e. do not enter any more, through the influence of karmas, into 'this human whirlpool', i.e. the material world, figuratively implied by the creation of mankind, and subject to re- currence (which is indicated by the term 'whirlpool'), — as declared by the Lord Himself in the passage : ' "The worlds, beginning from the world of Brahma, come and go, Arjuna. But, on attaining me, son of Kunti, there is no rebirth"' (Gita 8.16). The difference of the world of Brahman from the sphere of matter is stated in the Moksa-dharma under the dialogue between Jaigisa and Vyasita in the passage which begins: "'A man of what nature, of what conduct, of what learning, of what valour does attain the place of Brahman which is higher than prakrti, and eternal"?', and ends '"He attains the place of Brahman which is higher than prakrti, and eternal" ' (Maha. 12.9968-9969 *). SCTRA 18 "On account 0E non- abiding, as well as on account of IMPOSSIBILITY, NOT THE OTHER." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha That which is within the eye cannot be any one "other" than the Highest Self. Why? Because any one other than Him does not regularly abide therein; and because immortality and the rest are not possible on its part. Vedanta -kaustubha "The other", i.e. the reflected self, or the individual soul, or the presiding deity of the eye, in short, any one other than the Supreme Soul, — is not the Person within the eye. Why? "On account of non-abiding ", i.e. because any one other than the Supreme Soul, does not regularly abide in the eye, since the presence of the reflected soul in the eye depends on the nearness of another person to the eye, (and hence when the person moves away, there is no reflection any longer); since the individual soul is connected with all the sense-organs (and cannot, therefore, abide within the eye only); and since the » P. 716, lines 22-23, vol. 3. For full quotation see under V.K. 1.3.13. [SO. 1. 2. 19. ADH. 5.] VEDlNTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 121 presiding deity is declared to abide in, the eye through the rays, (and hence does not himself abide within the eyes x ) ; and finally, because immortality, fearlessness, 'being the unjter of lovely things ' and the rest are not possible on the part of any one other than Him. Hen.ce, it is established that the Highest Soul alone is to be worshipped as the person within the eye. Here ends the section entitled 'That which is within' (4). COMPARISON Srikanfha Interpretation different, viz. ho takes this sutra as forming an adhikarana by itself, concerned with the question whether the Person, of the size of a thumb merely, (Mahanar. 16.3) is the Lord or someone else. Thus: '(The person, of the size of a thumb, is the Lord), because of the instability (i.e. unsuitableness), as well as because of the impossibility (of the attributes of "having the entire world as the body", "being the devourerofthe entire world", and so on, on the part of any one else)'. 2 Adhikarana 5: The section entitled 'The inner controller'. (Sutras 19-21) SCTRA 19 "The inner controller in the presiding deities and the rest, and in the worlds and the rest (is the highest self) ; on account of the designation op hls qualities." 3 Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The inner controller, — mentioned repeatedly in all the versions in reference to the presiding deities of the earth and the rest, in the passage which begins: 'He who, abiding within the earth', and I Vide 6x1. B. 1.1.18, p. 354, Part 1. a 6K. B. 1.1.18, pp. 364-66, Part 4. » Cf. the different readings: — K.S.S. ed. and Brindaban ed. read 'adhi- devddi'. C.S.S. ed. reads ' adhidaivddhi' . [sty. 1. 2. 19. 122 VBDiNTA-KAUSTtTBHA ADH. 5.] continues: 'He is your soul, the inner controller' (Brh. 3.7.3 1 ), — is the Highest Self alone. Why? "On account of the designation of His qualities" here, viz. 'being the controller of all' and so on. Vedanta-kaustubha Now, the author points out that just as the text about the Person within the eye refers to Brahman, so the text about the inner controller, too, refers to Brahman, and to none else. The inner controller, i.e. the controller who abides within ; who is repeatedly mentioned in the Brhadaranyaka, under the section treating of the inner controller, in all the versions in reference to the presiding deities of the earth, the sky, the ether and the rest, in the passage which beginning: 'Who controls from within this world and the other world and all beings' (Brh. 3.7.1), continues: 'He who, dwelling within the earth, is other than the earth, whom the earth does not know, of whom the earth i& the body, who controls the earth within — He is your soul, the inner controller, immortal 2 ' (Brh. 3.7.3), and so on; and who is taught, after that, — in the text which begins: 'He who abiding in all the worlds' (Sat. Br. 14.6.7.17 8 ) and ends: 'He who abiding within the soul' (Sat. Br. 14.6.7.30*), — by a section, wbioh enjoins him with in reference to the worlds, the Vedas, the sacrifices and the soul 6 , — is such an inner controller, a deity, or an individual soul, or the Highest Self, the one topic of all the Vedas ? What is reasonable here ? He may be a presiding deity, or an indivi- dual soul, because these two abide everywhere. With regard to this, we reply: The inner controller mentioned in all the versions in reference to the presiding deities of the earth, fire, sky, ether, air, sun and the rest, can be the Highest Self alone. i 6, B, Bh, 6K, B. 2 This is repeated at tho end of each verse from Brh. 3.7.3-3.7.23. » V. 1074, line 5. « Op. tit., line 18. 6 The Kdnva branch designates a boing abiding within the earth and the rest (vide Brh. 3.7.3-23). The Mddhyandina branch, after designating a being abiding within the earth and so on (vide 6at. Br. 14.6.7.7-16), reads three additional texts, viz. 'He who dwells in all the worlds', 'He who dwells in all the Vedas' and 'He who dwells in all the sacrifices,' and in place of 'He who dwells in intelligence' (Brh. 3.7.22) a text 'He who dwells in the soul' (Vide $at. Br. 14.6.7.17-30). Note that Nimbarka makes no reference to this Mddhyandina addition in his commentary, although it is clearly indicated in the vatra by the word' lokddi^u'. [SO. 1. 2. 19. ADH. 5.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 123 Wherefore ? "On account of the designation of His qualities", i.e. on account of the designation here of the peculiar qualities of the Highest Self, viz. 'being the governor of all worlds, Vedas, sacrifices, beings, vital-breaths, soul and the rest', 'being the inner controller of all', 'being immortal' and so on. Hence a deity cannot be understood, because a deity, too, is but an individual soul and the stated qualities are not appropriate on his part, and because in that case, the statement that the inner controller is unknowable by the earth-god, viz. 'Whom the earth does not know' (Brh. 3.7.3), becomes inconsistent. The individual soul, too, is not the inner controller, for the stated qualities are not appropriate on its part as well; and because in the passage: 'He is your soul, the inner controller' (Brh. 3.7.3, etc.), it is declared to be different from the inner controller by the use of the genetive case ( = 'your'), designating difference. COMPARISON Sarnkara This is sutra 18 in Samkara-bhasya. Beading different, viz. 'Antaryamyadhidaivadisu ' *, i.e. omits 'lokadisu'. Ramanuja Readbjg like the Chowkhamba edition. 8 Interpretation different, viz. exactly like ^rinivasa's. Nimbarka reads 'lokadisu' in the sutra, like Ramanuja, but gives no meaning of the word 'lokadisu'. Bhaskara and Srikantha This is sutra 18 in his commentary. Reading like the Chow- khamba edition. 8 Baladeva This is sutra 18 in his commentary. Reading different, viz. like Samkara's. 4 i IB. 1.2.18, p. 282. * Sri. B. 1.2.19, p. 257, vol. 1. » Bh. B. 1.2.18, p. 43. I§K. B. 1.2.19, p. 368, Part 4. * G.B. 1.2.18 (p. 128, Chap. 1). [SO. 1. 2. 20. 124 vedanta-parijata-saurabha adh. 5.] SCTRA 20 "And (the inner controller is) not that which is designated in the smrti, on account op the mention op qualities not belonging to it." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha And, pradhana is not denoted by the term "inner controller", "on account of the mention" of the qualities of a sentient being, viz. 'being the controller of all', 'being the seer of all' and so on. Vedanta-kaustubha Although pradhana has already been set aside under the apho- rism: 'Because (he) sees, not, it is non-scriptural' (Br. Su. 1.1.5), yet it is being set aside once more apprehending the possibility of the attributes of invisibility the rest (belonging to the inner controller alone) on its part. 1 "That which is designated in the Smrti", i.e. pradhana established by the Samkhya Smrti, is not denoted by the term "inner controller". Why? "On account of the mention of qualities not belonging to it", — "the qualities not belonging to it" mean the qualities which belong to a sentient being, — "on account of the mention ", i.e. declara- tion, of such qualities, in the concluding text: 'He is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unknown knower' (Brh. 3.7.23). On account of the designation of the qualities of a sentient being, viz. 'being the soul of all', 'being the governor of all' and so on, pradhana cannot be accepted here. COMPARISON Ramanuja and Srlkantha Reading different, viz. add 'sarlrasca', and extends the same argument to the case of the individual soul as well. 2 1 That is, pradhana is invisible, and the inner controller too is said to be invisible, etc. (Brh. 3.7.23). Hence it might bo thought that pradhana is the inner controller. This is being refuted here. * 6a. B. 1.2.20, p. 259, Part 1. 6K. B. 1.2.20, p. 372, Part 4. [SO. 1. 2. 21. ADH. 5.] VEDANTA-PIBIJITA-SAUBABHA 126 SOTRA 21 "And the embodied one (is not the inneb contbolleb), because both also depict it as different." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha "And" the individual soul is not the inner controller, because "both" the Kanvas, 'as well as' the Madhyandinas depict "it" "as different" from the inner controller, respectively in the passages: 'He who abiding in intelligence' (Brh. 3.7.22 *), 'He who abiding in the soul' (Sat. Br. 14.6.7.30 2). Vedanta-kaustubha To the objection: Lot then the individual soul, and not pradhana, be denotod by the term "inner controller", since the qualities of being a seer and the rest are appropriate on the soul's part — the author replies here : The word 'not ' is to be supplied here from the preceding aphorism. And the "embodied one", i.e. the soul which has entered into a body, its abode for enjoying the fruits of its own actions, is not denoted by the term "inner controller", on account of the mention of qualities not belonging to it, viz. 'being the soul of all', 'being the governor of all', 'being the seer of all' and so on; 'for both' the Kanvas, 'as well as' the Madhyandinas "depict" 'this', i.e. the embodied one, "as different " from the inner controller, since the embodied self is an abode like the earth and the rest, and is an object to be governed. 3 The Kanvas read: 'He who abiding within intelligence' (Brh. 3.7.22), the Madhyandinas read: 'Whom the soul does not know, of whom the soul is the body, who controls the soul from within — He is your soul, the inner controller, immortal' (6at. Br. 14.5.7.30). There being the denial of any other seer in the passage: "There is no seer other than Him' (Brh. 3.7.23), the seer of everything is the Highest Person alone, the sense being that none other than the Lord is the seer of everything. The individual soul, known from the text: 'The person alone is a seer, a hearer', is the seer of only a few things in i S, B, Bh, l§K. B. « P. 1074, line 18. 6, B, Bh, l$K. B. * I.e. the individual soul is the abode, while the inner controller is one who abides therein, just as He abides within the earth and the rest. Again, the individual soul is the objeot governed, the inner controller, the governor. Hence the two are different. [stJ. 1. 2. 21. 126 VBDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] contrast to Brahman, (the seer of everything), — such is the distinction (between Brahman, and the soul, though both are seers). Here too, the difference of nature between the individual soul and Brahman is established by Scripture and aphorism. This difference should not be understood in the sense the logicians understand it to exist between the individual soul and the Lord, (i.e. as absolute difference), but (it implies that the individual soul) is a part of Brahman who is One alone, as mentioned in the text: 'Brahman, 1 one, without a second' (Chand. 6.2.1), without an equal or a superior, the governor, possessed of infinite powers and an ocean of auspicious qualities. Although here in the introductory chapter, the individual soul, possessed of the stated marks, is said to be different from the Lord, because of its own peculiar qualities, mentioned in the Veda, viz. 'being an object to be controlled' and so on, — yet just as an attribute is different from its substratum (yet non-different from it), so it is non-different from its own controller, as it is incapable of having an independent existence or activity, and as it does not contradict the attributes, such as, 'being one', 'being without a second' and so on, belonging to the Whole of which it is a part. 2 Thus, the qualities of 'being subject to bondage and release', 'having little knowledge' and the rest, pertain to the part, (viz. the individual soul); while the qualities of 'being ever-free', 'being omniscient', 'being unenveloped (by nescience)', 'being the object to be approached by the freed' and the rest, are peculiar to Brahman. Hence, no fault of an intermixture of qualities arises here. Similarly, 'materiality', 'mutability' and the like are tho peculiar qualities of the non-sentient, a power of Brahman ; while ' omnipotence ', 'omniscience' and the rest, are peculiar to Brahman, the possessor of the power. Although prakrti is different from Brahman as a power, yet it is non-different from Brahman, as a power has no separate activity, etc. Thus, a relation of difference-non-difference between the three realities is the view of the followers of the Upanisads (i.e. Vedantins). Here ends the section entitled "The inner controller' (5). 1 The word 'Brahman' not included in the original text. * I.e. if the individual soul were different from Brahman, then it would have been a second principle besides Brahman and would have thereby contra- dicted His Oneness. But as it does not do so, it must be non-different from Him. [SO. 1. 2. 22. ADH. 6.] VBDINTA-PARIJATA-SAUBABHA 127 COMPARISON Ramanuja and Srikaofha Reading different, viz. omits 'sariraica' in the beginning, interpretation same. 1 Thus, according to NimbSrka, Samkara, Bhaskara and Bala- deva: — 'Na ca smartam atad-dharmabhilapat.' (One sutra.) 'Sarirascobhaye'pi hi bhedenainam adhiyate.' (One sutra.) According to Ramanuja and Srikantha: — ' Na ca smartam atad-dharmabhilapat sariraS ca. ' (One sutra . ) 'Ubhaye'pi hi bhedenainam adhiyate.' (One sutra.) Adhikarana 6: The section entitled 'Invisibi- lity'. (Sutras 22-24) SCTRA 22 "That which possesses the qualities of invisibility and so on (is Bbahman), on account of the mention of (His) QUALITIES." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha That which is mentioned by the Atharvanikas in the text: 'Invisible' (Mund. 1.1.6 2 ) and so on, as 'possessed of the qualities of invisibility and the rest', is the Highest Self alone. Why? "On account of the mention" of His "qualities" in the passage 'He who is omniscient' (Mund. 1.1.9 s ), etc. Vedanta-kaustubha In the preceding section, pradhana was set aside on the ground of qualities like 'being a seer' and the like which belong to a sentient being only. Now, by showing that the text: 'Now, the higher is that whereby that Imperishable' (Mund. 1.1.5), and so on refers to Brahman, the author is disposing of the objection, viz. Let pradhana 1 Sri. B. 1.2.22, p. 260, Part I. $K. B. 1.2.22, p. 374, Fart 1. " S, R, Bb, l§K, B. 3 Op. cit. [s(J. 1.2. 22. 128 vedanta-kaustpbha adh. 6.] be understood here (in the above text), owing to the absence of that (i.e. owing to the fact that the above text contains no reference to the qualities of a sentient being). In the Atharvana, it is said: 'There are two knowledges to be known' (Mund. 1.1.4). Among these, the knowledge of works, viz. the Rg-veda and the rest, is the lower. 1 With a view to teaching the higher, viz. the knowledge of Brahman, in contrast to it, it is said: 'Now, the higher is that whereby the Imperishable is appre- hended, that which is invisible, incapable of being grasped, without family, without caste, without eye, without ear, it is without hands and feet, eternal, all-pervasive, omnipresent, excessively subtle, it is unchangeable, which the wise perceive as the source of beings ' (Mund. 1.1.5-6), 'Without the vital-breath, without mind, pure, higher than the high Imperishable' (Mund. 2.1.12) and so qn. Here a doubt arises as to whether here the Imperishable, the source of beings and possessed of the qualities of invisibility and tho rest, is pradhana, or the individual soul, or the Highest Self. The prima facie view is as follows : — As invisibility and such other qualities are possible on the part of pradhana and the individual soul ; as pradhana is established to be the source of beings; and as the individual soul too, the cause of the body and the rest through its own works, can be so, — lot one of these two be the Imperishable. With regard to this, we reply: The Imperishablo, the source of beings and possessed of the qualities of invisibility and the rest, is the Highest Self alone. Why? "On account of the mention of qualities", i.e. because in the passage: 'He who is all-knowing, omniscient, whose penance consists of knowledge, from Him alone Brahman, name and form, and food arise' (Mund. 1.1.9), the permanent attributes of the Highest Self, viz. omniscience, etc. are stated, with a view to laying down the attributes of the Imperishable, tho source of beings. If it be objected: This view is not reasonable. Having referred to the Imperishable in the passage: 'The Imperishable is apprehended ' (Mund. 1.1.5), then again having designated the Imperishable as a limit in the passage: 'Higher than the high Imperishable' (Mund. 2.1.2), the text next goes on to designate the meaning of the word 'higher' as the Highest Self, in the passage: 'He who is all-knowing' (Mund. 1.1.9). If here the Highest Self be understood by the word i VideMuivjL 1.1-5. [stJ. 1. 2. 22. ADH. 6.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 129 "Imperishable' in the first passage, then how can the text: 'Higher than the Imperishable, the Light' (Mund. 2.1.2) be possible, it being impossible for one to be higher than one's own self, and there being no reality higher than Brahman, the Imperishable, the cause of the world and the topic of discussion, as evident from the declaration by the Lord Himself, viz. ".'There is nothing else, higher than me, Dhanafijaya" ! ' (Glta 7.7), as well as from the scriptural text : 'There is nothing higher than the Person' (Katha 3.11) ? Hence, let either pradhana or the individual soul be the meaning of the word 'Imperish- able', mentioned first, (Mund. 1.1.5); and let the Highest Self, higher than that high Imperishable, be omniscient, — (We reply:) Not so, because the word 'Imperishable', mentioned for the second time, (Mund. 2.1.5) does not refer to the Highest Self. Thus, from the knowledge, called 'higher', — mentioned in the passage: ' The higher is that whereby that Imperishable is apprehended ' {Mund. 1.1.5), — it is gathered that the Imperishable is the Highest Brahman alone, since no other knowledge, except that of Brahman, can be high. Thus, having begun with the Highest Self, denoted by the word 'Imperishable' and celebrated in the texts: 'He teaches in truth that knowledge of Brahman whereby one knows the Imperish- able, the Person, the True' (Mund. 1.2.13), 'As the hairs and the body-hairs arise from a living person, so from the Imperishable arises this Universe' (Mund. 1.1.7), 'As from a well-lit fire thousands of sparks of a similar form emit forth, so do, my dear, manifold existences from the Imperishable' (Mund. 2.1.1) and so on, and with the Imper- ishable, possessed of the attributes of invisibility and the rest, in the passage : ' Now, the higher is that whereby that Imperishable is known ' {Mund. 1.1.5), Scripture, with a view to demonstrating His qualities and nature, designates Him once more as 'higher' than the 'Imperish- able ', i.e. than the individual soul which is His own part ; as well as than the 'high', i.e. pradhana which His own power, — i.e. designates Him as their source and controller. Or, else, the 'Imperishable' is that which pervades the mass of its own modifications; 'higher' than that imperishable is pradhana which is superior to its own modifica- tions; and 'higher' than this pradhana is the Highest Self. Or, else, the Supreme Person is 'higher' than the Person within the aggregate (or Hiranyagarbha) who is higher than the Imperishable, viz. pradhana, — this is the sense. 9 [SO. 1. 2. 23. 130 VEDANTA-PlBUlTA-SAUBABHA ADH. 6.J SOTRA 23 " Also on account of the designation of attbibutes and diffebence, not the two othebs." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha Pradhana and the individual soul are not denoted by the words 'Imperishable, the source of beings', "on account of the designation of attributes and difference". The designation of attributes is: 'All-pervading' (Mund. 1.1.6 1 ); and the designation of difference is: 'Higher than the high Imperishable' (Mund. 2.1.2 2 ). Vedanta-kaustubha " The two others ", i.e. pradhana and the soul, are not indicated as the Imperishable, the source of beings, but the Highest Self alone. Why ? " Also on account of the designation of attributes and differ- ence." That is, the attribute: 'All-pervading' (Mund. 1.1.6) in the text concerned excludes pradhana and the individual soul from being the Imperishable, the source of beings, — on account of that; in the text: 'Higher than the high Imperishable' (Mund. 2.1.2), the difference of the Imperishable, the source of beings, from these two is designated, — on account of that as well. COMPARISON Ramanuja and Srikantha They interpret this sutra in the same way. The word 'visesana ' interpreted differently, viz. 'Because this section distinguishes the Imperishable from pradhana and the individual soul, since it aims at proving that through the knowledge of one there is the knowledge of all'.* 1 Not quoted by others. a 6, R, Bh, &K. » 6ri. B. 1.2.23, p. 364, Part 1. gK. B. 1.2.23, p. 383, Part 4. [SO. 1. 2. 24. ADH. 6.] VEDlNTA-PlBIJiTA-SAr/BABHA 131 SUTRA 24 "Also on account of the mention of (His) fobm." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha "Also on account of. the mention of the form" of the Highest Self in the passage: 'Fire is his head' (Mund. 2.1.4 *) and so on, not the other two. Vedanta -kaustubha The very same Being who is this Imperishable, the source of beings, the Cause of all causes and has the sentient and the non- sentient as His powers, abides also as the inner controller of the sentient and the non-sentient, the powers, and as His effects; and should be meditated on by one who desires salvation and is free from the faults of envy and malice, — with a view to showing this, the author here states that the universe is the form of the Lord. The Imperishable, the source of beings, is the Highest Self alone, and not the other two. Why ? " On account of the mention of (His) form." In the passage: 'Fire is his head, his eyes, the sun and the moon, the regions his ears, his utterances the Vedas, wind his breath, his heart the Universe, from his feet the earth (arises), truly, he is the Inner Soul of all beings' (Mund. 2.1.4), the entire expanse of the universe, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, is designated as the form of the Highest Self alone, the inner Controller of all. If pradhana and the individual soul be understood here, the designation of such a form is not possible. For this reason also, it is established that the Imperishable, who is the source of beings, is the Highest Person. Here ends the section entitled 'Invisibility' (6). COMPARISON Baladeva After this sutra he reads a sutra 'prakaranat', not found in other commentaries. i 6, R, Bh, 6k. [stf. 1. 2. 25. 132 vedAnta-parijata-saurabha adh. 7.] Adhikarana 7: The section entitled 'VaiSvS- nara'. (Sfltras25-33) SCTRA 25 " Vaisvanara (is the Lord), on account of the distinctive attributes of the common term." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha 'Vaisvanara' is the Highest Self alone, because that the word 'Vaisvanara', though a common term, denoting (both) fire and Brahman, is to be understood as implying Brahman here, follows from the fact that we know its "distinctive attributes" through the designa- tion of its parts, such as the heaven as its head and so on. Vedanta-kaustubha Thus, it has been pointed out that the Lord is to be meditated on as the Soul of the movable and the immovable. Now, by pointing out that the Lord is to be meditated on, in the very same manner, as Vaisvanara also, the author shows that the text: '"Who is our soul > What is Brahman " ? ' (Chand. 5.11.1) refers to the Lord. In the Chandogya, the following passage is found, beginning: "'Who is our soul? What is Brahman"?' (Chand. 5.11.1), '"You know now that Vaisvanara Self, tell us about Him alone" ' (Chand. 5.11.6), and continuing: 'But he who meditates on the Vaisvanara Self as of the measure of a span only, and as of an unlimited dimension, — he eats food in all the worlds, in all beings, in all selves. Verily, of this Vaisvanara Self, the head, indeed, is the brightly shining (heaven), the eye the multiform (sun), the breath that which moves in various paths (i.e. the wind), the body the extended (space), the bladder, indeed, wealth (i.e. water), the feet the earth indeed, tho breast, indeed, the sacrificial altar, the hairs the sacrificial grass, the heart the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anvaharyapacana fire, the mouth the Ahavaniya fire ' (Chand. 5.18.1-2). A doubt arises as to whether here Vaisvanara is the gastric fire, or the elemental fire, or the presiding deity of fire, or the Highest Self. The prima facie view is as follows: The word 'Vaisvanara' is a common term. Why ? Because it is applied to the gastric fire, as in the passage: 'This is the Vaisvanara fire which is within this person, by means of which [SO. 1. 2. 25. Aim. 7.] vedanta-kaustubha 133 this food that is eaten is digested. Its noise is that which one bears on covering the ears. When one is on the point of departing one does not hear this sound' (Brh. 5.9.1); because it is applied also to the elemental fire, as in the passage: 'For the whole world, the gods made Agni Vaisvanara a sign of the day' (Rg. V. 10.88.12 x ); because it is applied to the fire-god too, as in the passage: 'May we be in the favour of Vaisvanara, for verily, he is the king of the worlds, bliss, lustrous' (Rg. V. 1.98.1 2 ); and because it is applied to the Highest Self, as in the passages: 'He threw it in the self, indeed, in the heart, in Agni Vaisvanara' (Tait. Br. 3.1.8.7 s ). 'This Vaisva- nara arises as having all forms, as the vital-breath, as fire' (Prasna 1.7). With regard to it, we reply: Vaisvanara is the Highest Person alone. Why ? " On account of the distinctive attributes of the common word ", i.e. because there are distinctive attributes for taking the common term ' Vaisvanara ', — applied, equally, to the gastric fire, the elemental fire, the fire-god and the Highest Self, — as denoting specifically the Highest Self alone. The sense is that the distinctive attributes by reason of which the Highest Person alone may be taken as the primary meaning of the word 'Vaisvanara', are present here, as we know them from the text : ' Of this Vaisvanara Self, the head indeed is the brightly shining (heaven)' (Chand. 5.18.2) and so on. Hence, the word 'Vaisvanara', though commonly applicable to all (the four), here denotes the Highest Self (alone), on account of such distinctive attributes. The gastric fire and the rest cannot possibly have limbs, like the heaven, and the rest down to the earth, — since they are not the soul of all, and since in this section, the common term is qualified by the special attributes of the Lord, such as, ' being the soul of all ' and the rest, mentioned in the introductory text : " Who is cpr soul ? What is Brahman" ? ' (Chand. 5.11.1). i P. 347, lines 7-8. 2 P. 31, lines 3-4. s P. 265, lines 3-4, (vol. 3). Correct quotation: 'Tad . . . hfdaye agnau vaiivanare pratyat '. [SO. 1. 2. 26. 134 VEDlNTA-PABIJATA-SAUBABHA ADH. 7.] SCTRA 26 "That which is stated by Smkti must be an indication, THUS." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The form, stated in Smrti as well, in the passage: 'Of whom, fire is the mouth, the heaven the head' (Maha. 12.1656.6 *), "must" be a decisive factor in proving that Vaisvanara is the Highest Self. Vedanta-kaustubha The word "thus" implies the reason. For this reason, too, Vaisvanara is the Highest Self alone, — because " that which is stated by Smrti must be an indication " of the fact that the word 'Vaisvanara ' denotes the Highest Self. The phrase "That which is stated by Smrti" means that the form, characterized by having the heaven for the head and the rest, denoted by the scriptural text: 'The head, indeed, is the brightly shining (heaven)' (Chand. 5.18.2) and so on, is mentioned also by a Smrti which follows Scripture. That very thing must be " an indication", i.e. a decisive factor here, — this is the sense. The Smrti-passages are the following: 'Of whom fire is the mouth, the heaven the head, the sky the navel, the earth the feet, the sun the eye, the regions the ear, — obeisance to Him, the Soul of the world' (Maha. 12.16566-1657a 2 ), 'Of whom the heaven is the head, the wise declare, the sky, verily, the navel, the sun and the moon the eyes, the regions the ear, the earth the feet, — He is the inconceivable Soul, the maker of all beings'. For this very reason, it has been said: 'Scripture and Smrti are celebrated to be the two eyes of the wise. Deprived of one, one is said to be "one-eyed"; deprived of both "blind" '. Or, (an alternative explanation of the sutra:) the phrase: "That which is stated by Smrti" means as follows: (The form) which is recognized in the following manner thus: What is celebrated in another scriptural text, viz. 'Fire is his head, the eyes the sun and the moon' (Mund. 2.1.4), and so on, as well as in the stated Smrti-passages as the form of the Highest Self, that alone, is stated here (in Chand. 5.18.2), — that form must be an indication, i.e. a sign, that Vaisvanara is the Highest Self. i 6. R. * P. 424, lines 2-3, vol. 3 [su. 1. 2. 27. ADH. 7.] VEDlNTA-PlRIJiTA-SAURABHA 135 SCTRA 27 " If it be objected that (Vaisvanara is the gastric fire) on account op word and the rest, on account of abiding WITHIN, NOT (THE HIGHEST SELF), (WE REPLY:) No, ON ACCOUNT OF TEACHING THE VISION (OF THE LORD) THUS, ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOSSIBILITY, AND (BECAUSE) THEY READ HIM ALSO AS A PERSON. " x Vedanta-parijata-saurabha If it be objected that since the word 'Vaisvanara' conventionally denotes the gastric fire, since there is the designation of a triad of fires, since it is mentioned as the abode of the offering to the vital- breaths, and since it is declared by Scripture to be abiding within, Vaisvanara is not the Highest Self, but the gastric fire, — (We reply:) "No", "as" the Supreme Lord is "taught to be viewed" " thus", i.e. in the gastric fire; "for" if the Supreme Lord be not understood here, then having the heaven as the head and the rest 'is not possible'; and it is declared by Scripture to be a person, — so Vaisvanara is none but the Highest Self. Vedanta -kaustubha If it be objected: The Highest Self cannot be denoted by the word 'Vaisvanara' here, but the gastric fire. Why? "On account of words and the rest," i.e. the reasons which begin with 'word' are 'reasons beginning with word', 2 — 'on account of those'. 8 Those reasons are as follows: First, the 'word' here is 'Vaisvanara', and that conventionally denotes the gastric fire, and when a literal meaning is possible, it is improper to suppose any other meaning. Secondly, there is the word 'fire', i.e. there is a co-ordination between Vaisvanara and the word 'fire' in the Vajasaneyaka-text, viz. 'This is the Vaisvanara fire' (Sat. Br. 10.6.1.11 *). Thirdly, a triad of fires is designated in the text ; 'The heart is the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anvaharya' (Chand. 5.18.2) and so on. Fourthly, Vaisvanara is declared by Scripture to be the support of the offering to the 1 The C.S.S. ed. omits 'iti cen na', p. II. 2 Siibdadayah. 3 This explains the compound ' iabdadibhyah' . * P. 805, line 17. [SO. 1. 2. 28. 136 vedInta-pIbwata-saubabha adh. 7.] vital -breaths in the passage: 'Therefore, the first food which one may come across should be offered' (Chand. 5.19.1). And, finally, Vaisva- nara abides "within", which, more particularly, is a characteristic mark of the gastric fire, — the Vajasaneyins declare that Vaisvanara abides within in the passage: 'For he who knows this Vaisvanara fire to be like a man, abiding within a man' (Sat. Br. 10.6.1.11). On account of such reasons like "words and the rest", and "on account of abiding within", the Highest Self cannot be understood, — (We reply:) "No", "on account of teaching the vision (of the Lord) thus ", i.e. since such an object (viz. the gastric fire) is taught to be meditated on under the aspect of the Lord, i.e. since the Supreme Lord is enjoined to be meditated on as qualified by the gastric fire, i.e. since the above-mentioned Supreme Soul, who is Vaisvanara (or the universal soul) being the soul of all, is taught to be in the gastric fire and the rest as their soul. If it be objected: In that case, let gastric fire itself be Vaisvanara primarily, — we reply: no, "because that is impossible ", i.e. because having the heaven as the head and the rest is impossible on the part of the gastric fire. This means, it is possible on the part of the Highest Self alone, who is the soul of all, and not on the part of any one else. " And also", the Vajasa- neyins "read" " him", i.e. Vaisvanara, "as a person" in the passage: 'That Vaisvanara fire is the person' (Sat. Br. 10.6.1.11). It is possible for the Highest Self to be a Person, He being the soul of all, but this is not possible if the mere gastric fire be understood here. The word "and" J denotes that this is universally known, i.e. that the Highest Self is a Person is well-known from scriptural texts like: 'The Person, verily, is all this' (Svet. 3.15), 'There is nothing higher than the Person' (Katha 3.11) and so on. SCTRA 28 "Fob that veby season, not the deity, nob the element." VedSnta-parijata-saurabha On account of those " very " reasons stated above, "the deity and the element" are " not" to be understood by the word 'Vaisvanara'. i 'Ca' in the sutra. [SO. 1. 2. 29. ADH. 7.] VEDANTA-PARIJITA-SAURABHA 137 Vedanta-kaustubha "For that very reason", Le. on account of the very reasons stated above, the presiding "deity" of fire is not to be understood the word 'Vaisvanara'; and the "element", i.e. the elemental fire, also is not to be understood. SOTRA 29 " (There is) no contradiction, even (if the word " VaisvI- nara " denotes the lord) directly, jaimini (thinks so)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The Lord Vaisvanara is 'all and man', i.e. the soul of all, — to be meditated on "directly" as such; — this, tho teacher "Jaimini" thinks, involves " no contradiction". Vedanta-kaustubha Thus, the word ' Vaisvanara ' has been proved to be referring to Brahman, first on the ground of the reasons like 'distinctive attributes of a common term' (Br. Sfl. 1.2.25) and the rest. Again, there being a doubt, — viz. on account of words and the rest, as well as on account of abiding within, it refers to the gastric fire, — it has been once more proved, for the sake of removing incompatibility, to be referring to Brahman alone, qualified by the gastric fire, on the ground of the reasons like : ' because of teaching the vision (of the Lord) thus ' (Br. Sfl. 1.2.27) and so on. Now, by showing that the word 'Vaisvanara' denotes Brahman etymologically too, so that He may be directly worshipped as such, the author shows that another teacher too (viz. Jaimini) confirms his own view. The teacher "Jaimini" thinks that as the word 'Vaisvanara', even without being viewed as denoting the Lord, only so far as He is qualified by the gastric fire, refers directly to the Highest Self, in- tending to designate as it does His special qualities, — so Vaisvanara is to be meditated on "directly" as the Highest Self indeed. This view involves " no contradiction ". a 1 I.e. it has been said in the previous antra that Vaisvanara stands for the Lord only so far as the Lord is qualified by the gastric fire. But now it is said that Vaisvanara stands for the Lord directly, without any qualification. [stf. 1. 2. 30. 138 vedAnta-pIbijIta-saurabha adh. 7.] Etymologically, ' Vaisvanara ' implies 'he who is all and man', He being the Universal Soul; or 'one who is the man, i.e. the maker of all', He being the Universal Cause; or 'one by whom all men are to be controlled', He being the Universal Controller. The long vowel (i.e. 'a' in the word 'Vaisvanara') follows from the rule 'when " nara " follows " visva ", the "a " in the latter is lengthened to designate a name' (Pan. 6.3.129, SD. K. 10481). The taddhita-suffix (by which the word 'Vaisvanara' is derived from the word 'Vaisvanara') is added without changing the meaning, as in the case of 'raksasa' (derived from 'raksas'), 'vayasa' (derived from 'vayas') and so on. z The co-ordination of the words 'Agni' and 'Vaisvanara', too, is appropriate. 'Agni' is 'one who goes, i.e. goes to or manifests himself in the heart-lotus', — the 'na' (in the root 'ang') is elided in accordance with the rule: 'And, the "na" of "anga" is elided' 3 (Unadi-sutra 490) * — ; or 'one who causes one to go, i.e. causes the first birth of the Universe. SUTRA 30 " On accoumt of manifestation, A^marathya (thinks so)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha With a view to favouring His worshippers who are devoted to Him alone and to none else, tbe Highest Self though infinite, manifests Himself in accordance with the respective capacities of His devotees. As such, He can fittingly be regarded as of the size of merely a span, — this is so "on account of manifestation", so the sage " Asmarathya " thinks. Vedanta-kaustubha (The author) explains, in accordance with the approbation of Asmarathya, the text about that which is of the size of merely a span. In the text: 'But who meditates on the Vaisvanara Self as of the measure of a span only and as of an unlimited dimension ' (Chand. i P. 654, vol. 1. 2 Vide Pan. 4.1.104, SD. K. 1106, p. 682, vol. 1, and Pan. 5.4.38, SD. K. 2106, p. 936, vol. 1. * And 'nV is added, as mentioned in the antra 488. Thus, aAg = ag+ni = agni. * SD. K., p. 634; vol. 2. tsc. 1. 2. 31. ADH. 7.] VEDANTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 139 5.18.1), it is perfectly justifiable to hold that even one whose 'measure' or limit, has disappeared 'on all sides' or entirely 1 , i.e. even the Highest Person, who is unlimited, can be of the measure of a span merely, i.e. of the extent measured by the thumb and the forefinger. How ? " On account of manifestation." That is, with a view to favouring those who are devoted to none else except to Him, the Lord manifests Himself in the heart-lotus in a form, which is eternal, blissful and non-material, which is of the size of a span and is the fulfiller of the desire of His own devotees, just as He manifested Himself in tho limited space of a pillar as a man-lion. 2 This is the view of the teacher Asmarathya. Or, (an alternative explanation of the sutra), with a view to favouring the dull-witted devotees (i.e. who can grasp gross objects only), the Lord squeezes Himself, as it were, into gross regions only; though all-pervading, He limits Himself in accordance with their respective intelligence and manifests Himself in those respective places. Thus, "on account of manifestation", He can, very well, be of the measure of merely a span, — so thinks "Asmarathya", — this is the sense. COMPARISON Ramanuja and Srikanjha Interpretation of the word 'abhivyakteh' different, viz. 'on account of definiteness ', i.e. the texts speaks of the Lord of a definite extent with a view to rendering the thought of the meditating devotee more definite. 3 SCTRA 31 "On account of remembrance, Badari (thtnks so)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The imagination of a body from head to foot is " on account of remembrance", i.e. for the purpose of recollection (or meditation), — so thinks the teacher "Badari". 1 Abhilah vigatah manah = abhivimanah. * The reference is to the killing of Hira^yakaiipu by the Lord in the form of a man-lion. Vide Maha. 3.15835, etc. » Sri. B. 1.2.30, p. 274, Part 1. f$K. B. 1.2.30, p. 392. Part 1. [SO. 1. 2. 32. 140 vedAnta-pIrijAta-saurabha adh. 7.] Vedanta-kaustubha On the enquiry: What purpose is served by such a manifestation of a Being, — who is of the size of merely a span, — in the heart-lotus of the sharp-witted (i.e. those who are capable of grasping subtle things) ? On the enquiry : What purpose is served by such worship of a Being, — who is limited as having limbs like head and the rest in the heaven and so on, — on the part of the dull-witted (i.e. those who are capable of grasping gross things) ? — it is said here : The manifestation, in the heart-lotus, of the Highest Self as of the size of merely a span ; similarly the imagination of His body, from head to foot, in the regions of the heaven and the rest, are " on account of remembrance", i.e. serve the purpose of recollection, or meditation in that way, for attaining the Supreme Lord. This is the view of the teacher " Badari". SCTRA 32 " On account of identification, so Jaimini thinks, fob thus (Scripture) shows." Vedinta-parijata-saurabha The imagination of their 1 breast and the rest as the sacrificial altar and so on is for the purpose of effecting "an identification" of Agni-hotra with the offering to the vital-breaths, which is a sub- sidiary element of the Vaisvanara-vidya, practised by a worshipper of Vaisvanara, — " so" the teacher "Jaimini" thinks. That very thing the scriptural text: 'Now, he who offers the Agni-hotra, knowing this thus' (Chand. 5.24.2 *), 'shows'. Vedanta-kaustubha If it be asked : If the Highest Self, having thus the three worlds as His body, be denoted by the term ' Vaisvanara ', then, what is the purpose of imagining the breast and the rest of the worshipper as the sacrificial altar and so on thus: 'The breast is the sacrificial altar, the hairs the sacrificial grass, the heart the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anv&haryapacana fire' (Chand. 5.18,2)? — the author replies here: 1 I.e. of those who meditate on Vaiioanara, * S, R, SK. [SO. 1. 2. 33. A1)H. 7.] VEDINTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 141 The imagining of the worshippers as the sacrificial altar and the rest is for the purpose of effecting an " identification " of Agni-hotra with the offering to the vital-breath, which is a subsidiary element of the Vaisvanara-vidya, practised by the worshippers of Vaisvanara, —"so" the teacher "Jaimini" thinks. "For thus", i.e. this very identification of the offering to the vital-breath and the Agni-hotra, "Scripture shows" in the following passage: 'Now, he who offers the Agni-hotra knowing this thus, his offering is made to all the worlds, to all beings, to all selves ' (Chand. 5.24.2). COMPARISON Baladeva The interpretation of the word 'sampatteh' different, viz. 'on account of mysterious power or lordliness'. Hence the sutra: ' (The Lord is said to be of tho measure of a span) on account of (His) mysterious power, so Jaimini (thinks), for thus Scripture shows (viz. that tho Lord is possessed of such powers) '. 1 SOTRA 33 "And they record this in that." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha "And they record" " this", i.e. Vaisvanara having the heaven as his head and so on, as a Person in the body of the worshipper. Here ends the second quarter of the first chapter in the Vedanta- parijata-saurabha, an interpretation of the ^ariraka-mimamsa texts and composed by the Reverend Nimbarka. Vedanta-kaustubha And moreover, the Vajins "record" "this", i.e. the Lord Vaisva- nara, "in that", i.e. in the body of the worshipper, in the passage: 'He who knows this Vaisvanara fire as a man, abiding within man' (Sat. Br. 10.6.1.11). That is to say, these too, viz. his being a person, i G.B. 1.2.32, p. 142, Chap. 1. [SO. 1. 2. 33. 142 vedZnta-kaustubha adh. 7.] as well as his abiding within, are indicative of the fact that Vai6vanara is Brahman. The sense is that if the gastric fire be understood here, then the circumstance of abiding within a person will, of course, be possible, but not that of being like a person. Hence, it is established that VaiSvanara is the Highest Self. Here ends the section entitled ' Vaisvanara ' (7). Here ends the second quarter of the first chapter in the commentary, the holy Vedanta-kaustubha. COMPARISON Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. 'And they (viz. the Atharvani- kas) record this (viz. the existence of such mysterious powers) in that (viz. in the Lord) '. x Resume The second quarter of the first chapter contains : — (1) 33 sutras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Nimbarka ; (2) 32 sutras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Samkara ; (3) 33 sutras and 6 adhikaranas, according to Ramanuja ; (4) 32 sutras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Bhaskara ; (5) 33 sutras and 9 adhikaranas, according to Srikantha ; (6) 33 sutras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Baladeva. Samkara and Bhaskara and Baladeva omit the sutra 16 in Nimbarka's commentary. Nimbarka omits the sutra 24 in Bhas- kara's commentary. i G.B. 1.2.33, p. 143, Chap. 1. FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyaya) THIRD QUARTER (Pfida) Adhikarana 1: The section entitled 'The heaven, the earth, and so on'. (Sutras 1-7) SUTRA 1 "The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest (is Brahman alone), on account of the term ' own '." Vedanta-parijata saurabha "The support of the heaven, the earth and tho rest", stated in the passage: 'In whom the heaven' (Mund. 2.2.5 x ) and so on, is Brahman, "on account of the term 'own'", i.e. on account of the word ' soul ' and the rest which are denotative of Brahman. Vedanta - kaustubha Now the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that to be the support of the three worlds, too, is possible on the part of the Lord alone who has the heaven for His head and so on and is the soul of the three worlds. In, the Mundaka, we read: 'He in whom the heaven, the earth and the sky are woven, and the mind together with all the vital- breaths, — Him alone know as the one soul; give up other worlds. He is the bridge to immortality ' (Mund. 2.2.5). Here a doubt arises — viz. whether that which is indicated as the support of the heaven and the rest by the locative 'in whom' is pradhana or the individual soul, or the Supreme Soul, the eause of the birth and the rest of the world. What is suggested here to begin with ? The prima facie view is as follows : Let pradhana be the support. As it is found that an effect arises from and dissolves into its own cause, it is reasonable to hold that it has its own cause as its support. (This is so), also on account of the scriptural mention of 'bridge'. To be a bridge means to be limited ; but Brahman is not limited as declared i g, R, Bh, gK, B. [sC. 1. 3. 1. 144 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] by the text: 'Infinite, boundless' (Brh. 2.4.12). The term 'self too may be applied to pradhana thus: — Pradhana is the self, because of being the benefactor of the soul. Whoever is the benefactor of some one else is his self; just as (when it is said:) 'Verily, Bhadrasena is my self '. Or, else, let the individual soul be the support, as there is the mention of the word 'soul' in the text, — the word 'soul' denotes the individual soul primarily, since it is a sentient being; — as the soul is mentioned in Scripture as the support of sense-organs like mind and the rest ; as the soul is said to be connected with the vein, as well as to be born, in the passage: 'Where the veins have congregated together like the spokes in the nave of a wheel, he moves about within, becoming manifold' (Mund. 2.2.6); and, finally, to be the support of the entire universe, the object to be enjoyed, fits in on the soul's part, it being an enjoyer. We reply: "The support of the heaven, and the earth and the rest" is none but the Supreme Brahman. That is, 'dyau' and 'bhu' (make) 'dyubhuvau', that which begins with 'dyu-bhuvau' is ' dyu-bhuvau adi', i.e. all the things beginning with the heaven, and ending with the vital-breath, — their support is the Highest Self. Why 1 "On account of the term ' own'", i.e. on accotint of the term 'soul', denotative of itself, viz. of the Supreme Soul, the topic of dis- cussion, and characterized by an adjective as stated in the passage: 'Him alone know as the one soul; give up other worlds' (Mund. 2.2.5), — here, from the adjective 'one' which denotes the Lord, the soul of all, it is known that the 'soul' is the Supreme Soul; — also on account of the word 'bridge', mentioned in the passage: 'The bridge to immortality' (Mund. 2.2.5); i.e. the 'bridge' or the support meaning the cause of attaining 'immortality' or salvation. In another scriptural text, viz. 'By knowing him thus, one becomes immortal on earth' (Tait. At. 3.12 1 ), He alone is celebrated to be the cause of the attainment of immortality. Connection with the artery, too, is possible on the part of the Supreme Soul, in accordance with the scriptural text: 'But surrounded by the veins he hangs like a sheath' (Mahahar. 11.9). In accordance with the following scrip- tural and Smrti texts, viz. 'Not born, he is born in many ways' (Vj. S. 31.169*; Tait. Ar. 3.13.1 s ), 'Though unborn, the unchange- able soul' (Glta 4.6), it is also possible for Him to be born in many i P. 190. * P. 857, line 17. s p. 201. [sC. 1. 3. 2. ADH. 1.] VEDANTA-FARIJATA-SAURABHA 146 ways. Finally, to be the support of the instruments of the individual soul, too, is possible on the part of the Supreme Soul who is the support of all. The following aphorisms 1 , secondary in nature, are but amplifications of this primary aphorism. SCTRA 2 " On account of the designation (of Brahman) the object to be approached by the freed." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest is Brahman alone. Why? " On account of the designation" of such a support alone as " the object to be approached by the freed ", in the passage: 'When the seer sees the golden-coloured Creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahma, then the knower, having discarded merit and demerit, stainless, attains the highest identity' (Mund. 3.1.13 2 ) and so on. Vedanta-kaustubha The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest is none but Brahman. Why ? " On account of the designation (of Brahman) as the object to be approached by the freed." That which is to be approached, i.e. obtained, by those who are freed from the fetter of mundane existonce is " the object to be approached by the freed", on account of the " designation ", i.e. indication, of that 3 . The sense is: The reality that is admitted to be the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest, to be one, to be the bridge to immortality, and is celebrated elsewhere also as the object to be approached by the freed, — that very same reality, the one topic of all the Vedas and without an equal or a superior, is designated as the object to be obtained by the freed, in the passages: 'The knot of the heart is undone, all doubts are cut off, and his works perish, when he, who is high and low, is seen ' (Mund. 2.2.8), ' Just as the flowing rivers disappear into the ocean discarding name and form, so the knower, freed from name and form, goes to the Person, who is Higher than i Viz. Br. Su. 1.3.2-7. » B, 6k, B. * This explains the compound 'muktopaarpya-vyapadeddt'. 10 [SO. 1. 3. 3. 146 VEDANTA-PlBWlTA-SAUBABHA ADH. 1.] the high' (Mund. 3.2.8). The phrase 'high and low' means: One to whom the high, i.e. Brahma, Siva, and the rest, are inferior. The phrase : ' higher than the high ' means : the Person who is higher than the high, i.e. the individual soul or prakrti. 1 COMPARISON Ramanuja and Srikantha Reading slightly different, viz. adds a 'ca' in the end. 2 StJTRA 3 " Not the inference, on account of the absence of texts to that effect." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha Pradhana, which is arrived at through inference, is not that support, on account of the absence of texts denoting it. Vedanta-kaustubha The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest cannot be " the inference ". The non-sentient cause which is without any connection with Brahman, viz. pradhana, inferred by the Samkhyas on the ground of non-sentient effects, like the elements and the rest 8 , is said to be " the inference ", and that is not the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. Why ? "On account of the absence of texts to that effect." That is, the " text to that effect " is ' tac-chabda ', " absence of text to that effect " is ' atac-chabda ', on account of that *, or on account of the absence, here, of texts denoting the 1 Note that Nimbarka and SHnivdsa understand the word ' VyapadeAab' as referring to different passages. * Sri. B. 1.2.3, p. 283, Part 1. SK. B. 1.3.2, p. 401, Part 4. 8 First, we infer that every effect must have a cause, that cause another cause and so on, and finally there must be an uncaused first cause. Secondly, we infer that this uncaused first cause must be non-sentient, since the effects which we porceive are non-sentient, and the effect and its cause must be similar in nature. It is in this way that the Samkhyas arrive at non-sentient first cause or pradhana. * This explains the oompound 'atac-chabdat'. [stf. 1. 3. 4. ADH. 1.] VEDlNTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 147 inferrible pradhana. On the contrary, there are texts denoting a sentient being, such as, ' He who is omniscient' (Mund. 1.1.9.; 2.2.7) and so on. COMPARISON Ramanuja and Srikantha Reading difforent, viz. take this sutra and the next as one sutra. 1 SCTRA 4 "And the beaker of the vital-breath." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha " The boarer of the vital-breath " also is not the support of the heaven, the earth and tho rest. Why ? On account of the very same absence of texts to that effect. Vedanta-kaustubha The words: 'not, on account of the absence of texts to that effect' are to be supplied from the preceding aphorism. " The bearer of the vital-breath ", i.e. tho individual soul, too, is not the support of the heavon, the earth and the rest, on account of the absence of texts to that effect; — that means: although the term 'soul' is equally applicable to the individual soul and the Supreme Soul, yet just as in this section there are texts like ' Him alone know as one. — He is the bridge to immortality' (Mund.2.2.5), ' He whois omniscient' (Mund. 1.1.9; 2.2.7) and so on, establishing the peculiar qualities of the Supreme Soul, so there are no toxts here, establishing the peculiar qualities of tho individual soul; — also because it is impossible for the individual soul, which is atomic by nature, to be the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. This aphorism is taken separately, because of its association with the following aphorisms. 2 i Sri. B. 1.3.3, p. 283, Part 1. SK. B. 1.3.3, p. 403, Part 4. * That is, it would not have been necessary to introduce a special sutra for the individual soul, — which like pradhana is precluded in tho preceding sutra, — if it were not for the reasons given in the following three s&tras, which apply only to the individual soul, and not to prodhSna. [sC. 1. 3. 6-6. 148 VBDANTA-PABIJITA-SAUBABHA ADH. 1.] COMPARISON All others omit the 'ca' in the end. 1 SOTRA 5 "And on account of the designation of difference." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha Moreover, "on account of the designation of difference" also between the knower and the object to be known, the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest is not the bearer of the vital-breath, (or the individual soul). Vedanta-kaustubha The bearer of the vital-breath is not to be understood as the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. Why ? " On account of the designation of difference ", i.e. because the difference between the two, viz. between the individual soul — which is possessed of little knowledge and is subject to bondage and release through the Lord's maya, consisting of the three gunas — and the Omniscient Lord, as the knower and the object to be known, is designated by the holy Scripture itself in the passage : ' Him alone know as one ' (Mund. 2.2.5). The purpose of this repeated declarations of difference is to point out that with a view to attaining His nature, one should practise meditation on Him, based on a true knowledge about Him. SCTRA 6 "On account of the topic." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The Supreme Self being the topic, the individual soul is not to be understood as the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. 1 IB. 1.3.6, p. 310. Sri. B. 1.3.4, p. 283, Fart 1. Bh. B. 1.3.6, p. 62. SK. B. 1.3.4, p. 404, Part 4. B.B. 1.3.6. [SO. 1. 3. 7. ADH. 1.} VEDANTA-FABUATA-SAURABHA 149 Vedanta-kaustubha It is not that the individual soul constitutes the topic so that it may be understood here. None but the Supreme Soul is the topic here, as evident from the introductory passage: '"What, my reverend Sir, being known, all this comes to be known"?' (Mund. 1.1.3), — all things do not become known when the individual soul is known, since all things have not the individual soul as their soul — and as established by the fact that in the passage: 'Now, the higher is that whereby that Imperishable is apprehended' (Mund. 1.1.5) and so on, the Supreme Soul alone is referred to. SCTRA 7 " And on account of abiding and eating." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha " On account of the abiding " of the Highest Self as a non-eater, as well as 'on account of the eating' of the individual soul, as laid down in the text: 'Two birds' (Mund. 3.1.1; cf. also Svet. 4.6 1 ), the individual soul is not the support of the heaven and the earth. Vedanta-kaustubha The author is once more explaining statements regarding the difference between the individual soul and Brahman. The individual soul is not the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. Why ? " On account of abiding and eating ", " sthiti " and "odana" (make) " sthityodane " — on account of that 2 . "On account of the abiding " of one bird in the tree, i.e. the body, without eating the fruit of work and shining, and " on account of the eating " of the fruit of work by the other as subject to karmas, — as laid down in the text which refers to the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest, viz. 'Of these two, one tastes the sweet berry, the other looks on without eating' (Mund. 1.1.3), — the difference between the individual soul and Supreme Soul is known. Hence, it is established 1 £, R, Bh, 6K, B. 2 This explains the compound ' sthityodanabhyam' . [sff. 1. 3. 8. 150 vedInta-pIruata-sattrabha adh. 2.] that the independent and omniscient Supreme Soul alone is the bridge to immortality; and as the soul of all, He is also the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. Here ends the section entitled 'The heaven, the earth and the rest' (1). COMPARISON Samkara Reading and interpretation same, but points out at the ond in his usual manner that the distinction between the individual soul and Brahman is no more real than that between the ether within a pot and the universal ether and so on. 1 Adhikarana 2: The section entitled 'The plenty'. (Sutras 8-9) SCTRA 8 "The Plenty (is the Lord), because of the teaching (of it) as above serenity (viz. the vttal-breath)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The Plenty, taught by the highest teacher, the venerable Sanat- kumara, to our preceptor, the reverend N&rada, in the passage: 'But the Plenty alone should be enquired after' (Chand. 7.22.1 2 ), is not the vital-breath, but the Highest Person. Why ? " Because of the teaching " of the Plenty as " above " the vital-breath. Vedanta -kaustubha Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that the text: 'But the Plenty alone should be enquired after' (Chand. 7.22.1) and so on, refers to Brahman. i 6.B. 1.3.7, p. 31. * S, R, Bh, 6K, B. [stT. 1. 3. 8. ADH. 2.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 161 The following is recorded by the Chandogas: ' "It has been heard by me from men like you that one who knows the soul crosses over sorrow. I am such a sorrowing one, reverend sir ! Cause me, sir, to cross over the sorrow'" (Chand. 7.1.3), thus asked by Narada, his preceptor, the reverend Sanatkumara, the teacher of the doctrine of salvation, taught: 'The name is Brahman' (Chand. 7.1.5). Again, asked thus: '"Is there, sir, more than name"?' (Chand. 7.1.5), he taught: '"Speech, verily, is more than name"' (Chand. 7.2.1). In this way, fifteen objects, beginning with name and ending with the vital-breath, were taught. 1 After having taught the vital-breath, he, without being asked any further question, taught the following: '"But he, verily, speaks superiorly who speaks superiorly through truth"' (Chand. 7.16.1), '"But the Plenty alono should be enquired after". "I enquire, sir, after the Plenty. " " Where one does not see another, does not hear another, does not know another, that is the Plenty. But where one sees another, hoars another, knows another, that is the small"' (Chand. 7.23.1-24.1). Here the term 'plenty' (bhuman) donotes 'muchness'. It is derived in the following manner: The suffix 'imanic' is added to the word'bahu' (much) in tho sense of 'tho nature thereof' 2 , in accordance with tho rule: 'The (suffix) "imanic" is optionally added to the words " prthu " and the rest' (Pan. 5.1.122; SD. K. 1784 s ) (in order to indicate the sense 'the nature thereof '.—Pan. 5.1.119 ; SD. K. 1781). Then tho root (viz. bahu) and the suffix (viz. imanic) undergo a change in accordance with the rule: 'After "bahu", the first letters of " iman " and " iyas " affixes are elided, and " bahu " is replaced by the word " bhu" ' (Pan. 6.4.154, 158; SD. K. 2017*). Here 'muchness' means 'immensity' (i.e. quantitative greatness), and not numerosity (i.e. numerical greatness), because just as the term 'bahu' denotes numbor, as in the examples: 'In expressing numerosity the plural case affix is used' (Pan. 1.4.21; SD. K. 187 s ), 'Many, purified by the penance of knowledge' (Gita. 4.10), 'After many births' (Gita. 7.19) and so on, so it is soen to be applied in the sense of 'immensity' also, in contrast to smallness, as in the example: 'He who renders service, be it great or small, to one who has heard Scripture'. Here, too, the term 'plenty' being used , — _ (^^ . 1 Vide Chand. 7.1 et seq. 2 Taaya bhdvah. 3 P. 894, vol. 1. Correct quotation translated: ' Pj-thvadibhya imanio va'. * P. 908, vol. 1. That is, bahu + imanic = bhii+man — bhuman. * P. 114, vol. 1. [stT. 1. 3. 8. 152 VEDiNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.] in contrast to smallness in the passage: 'There is no pleasure in the small' (Chand. 7.23.1), its meaning is nothing but 'immensity'. Thus, there is no pleasure in the small, but the Plenty alone is pleasure. Hence: 'The Plenty alone is to be enquired into' (Chand. 7.23.1). That is, the Plenty, or the Supreme Soul alone, who is of the form of pleasure characterized by unsurpassed greatness, should be enquired after by one desiring salvation and wishing to attain pleasure charac- terized by unsurpassed greatness. When the reverend Sanatkumara said this, the reverend Narada said : ' "I enquire, sir, after the Plenty " ' (Chand. 7.23.1). That is, 'Sir', meaning, reverend teacher ! I desire to know the Plenty alone in particular. Therefore, Sanat- kumara told him the characteristic marks of the Plenty by means of a positive (indicating what it is) and a negative (indicating what it is not) proposition, thus 'where' (Chand. 7.24.1) and so on, — this is the sense of the text. Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether the Plenty is the vital-breath or the Supreme Soul. The vital-breath, holds the prima facie view, because in the previous passage: "The vital-breath is more than hope' (Chand. 7.15.1), the vital-breath alone is indicated, and because after the teaching about the vital-breath, there are no further question and answer (as there were in the previous cases), viz: ' "Is there, sir, more than name"?' (Chand. 7.1.5), '"Speech, verily, is more than name"' (Chand. 7.2.1). By the term 'vital-breath', the individual soul, endowed with the vital-breath, is to be understood, and not merely a kind of air, — because, from the passage: 'The vital-breath is the father, the vital-breath the mother' (Chand. 7.15.1), the vital- breath is known to be a sentient being ; and because in the introductory text, viz: 'One who knows the soul crosses over sorrow' (Chand. 7.1.3), as well as in the concluding text: 'To the soul alone belongs all this' 1 (Chand. 7.25.2), the term 'soul' is found employed. The passage: 'Where one does not see another' (Chand. 7.24.1) and so on, too, fittingly applies to the individual soul, because all its activities like seeing and the rest cease during its state of deep sleep ; and further, because all its practical activities like external perceptions and the rest cease when its own real nature, different from the body, the sense- organs, buddhi fend the rest, is known. Hereby, it should be known that texts like: 'Verily, the Plenty is pleasure' (Chand. 7.23.1), l Correct quotation: 'Atmaivedam sarvam'. Vide Chand. 7.25.2; p. 402. [SO. 1. 3. 8. ADH. 2.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 153 'Verily, the vital-breath is immortal' (Brh. 1.6.3) and so on, are all to be explained as referring to the individual soul, possessing the vital-breath. With regard to it, we reply : The Plenty is the Supreme Soul alone and not the individual soul, possessing the vital-breath. Why? " Because of the teaching (of it) as above serenity." " Serenity " means one in whom there is complete serenity, i.e. the individual soul, celebrated in the Scriptural text: "This serenity, having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form' (Chand. 8.3.4) and so on. (The above phrase means : because of the teaching of it as) " above " that which is denoted by the term: " vital- breath ". In the text: 'But he speaks superiorly who speaks through truth' (Chand. 7.26.1) from the term 'but', the difference between the subsequent teaching about the Plenty and the prior one about the vital-breath is known. The sense is that since the teaching about the Plenty is different from the teaching about the vital-breath, the meaning of the word " plenty " is different from the meaning of the term " vital-breath ". (An alternative explanation of the sutra.) Or, else, (the phrase means:) because of the teaching of the worshipper of truth as higher than the worshipper of the vital-breath, in the passage: 'But he, verily, speaks superiorly' (Chand. 7.16.1); i.e. owing to a difference between the worshippers, there is a difference between the objects to be worshipped as well. The senso is this: If it be objected: In accordance with your statement, viz. that the Plenty is that alone, which is denoted by the term truth, demarcated as higher than the individual soul, — just as each of the fifteen objects, beginning with name and ending with speech, is taught as successively higher by the reverend Sanatkumara, asked by the reverend Narada, — how do you know that truth is taught as something higher, — (we reply:) Having stated that a knower of the vital-breath is a superior speaker in the passage: 'Verily, by seeing this, by thinking this, by knowing this, one becomes a superior speaker' (Chand. 7.15.4), and having distin- guished the worshipper of truth from the worshipper of the vital- breath by the term 'but' in the passage: 'But he, verily, speaks superiorly, who speaks superiorly through truth' (Chand. 7.16.1), Scripture teaches truth, the cause of being a superior speaker in this case (Chand. 7.16.1), as higher than the vital-breath, the cause of being a superior speaker in the previous case (Chand. 7.15.4). [str. 1. 3. 8. 164 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.] The instrumental case 'through truth' (satyena) follows the rule: 'The third case-ending is added to a word denoting a mark or an attribute which indicates the existence of a particular state or condi- tion' (Pan. 2.3.21; SD. K. 566 *). The clause 'who speaks', etc. means: who speaks superiorly through truth which figuratively implies the Supreme Brahman, the object to be worshipped. The word 'truth' is well known to be denoting Brahman, as in the passages: 'Verily, the name of this Brahman is truth' (Chand. 8.3.4), 'Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite' (Tait. 2.1) and so on. 'Being a superior speaker ' means being the speaker of the supremacy of one's own objoct of worship, and this amounts to declaring the unsurpassed- ness of the Deity to be worshipped. The suffix 'satr' in 'by seeing this' and the rest follows the rule: 'The present participle is used to denote the manner or the cause of an action' (Pan. 3.2.126; SD. K. 3103 2 ). That is, the direct vision of the Deity to be worshipped is the cause of being a superior speaker. The sense is that it becomes possible for one to bo such a superior speaker only through the grace of the Deity worshipped by him, and apprehended through direct vision. Moreover, the very permission to speak the truth, giving up being a superior speaker through merely the vital-breath, asked for in the passage: '"May I, sir, speak superiorly through truth"' (Chand. 7.16.1), indicates the termination of the section of the vital- breath. Here, the term 'soul', too, can have a consistent meaning only if the Supreme Soul be understood, since to be the cause of all, mentioned in the passage: 'To the self alone all this belongs' (Chand. 7.26.1 3 ), is impossible on the part of any one else. His Holiness will speak of this in subsequent aphorisms. 4 COMPARISON Baladeva He gives two alternative explanations of the sutra the last of which agrees with the explanation given by Nimbarka. The first explanation is: 'The Plenty (is Brahman), because it is immense joy, and because it is taught as the highest'. 6 i P. 423, vol. 2. * P. 568, vol. 2. 3 For correct quotation see footnote 1, p. 152. * Vide Br. 8u. 2.1.4-36. 6 G.B. 1.3.8. [St. 1. 3. 9. ADH. 2.] VEDANTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 155 SCTRA 9 " And on account of the appropriateness of the attributes." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha " And " because attributes like 'being of the form of unsurpassed pleasure', 'being immortal', 'being established on one's own great- ness' and the rest are " appropriate " on the part of the Highest Self alone, the Plenty is none but the Highest Self. Vedanta-kaustubha The attributes, mentioned in the section of the Plenty, which are not possible on the part of any one else, being " appropriate " in reference to the Highest Self alone, it is known that the Plenty is the Highest Self. Thus, the passage: 'Where one does not see another' (Chand. 7.24.1), means: 'where' one, immersed in pleasure characterized by unsurpassed greatness, 'does not see', i.e. notice, 'another', i.e. petty worldly pleasure, the contrary of the pleasure which is characterized by greatness, — just as one who has drunk tho nectar, does not notice any other drink. Moreover, 'where' ono, plunged in pleasure, 'doos not see ' any sorrow, the contrary of pleasure, i.e. comes to be endowed with every pleasure and delivered from every sorrow. The term 'where' means 'by being attached to whom'. Such attributes of 'being the giver of unsurpassed pleasure', 'being the remover of all sorrow ' and the rest are appropriate on the part of the Highest Self alone, and not on that of the individual soul, denoted by the term 'vital-breath'. Further, as the attributes of 'being immortal by nature', 'being established on one's own great- ness', 'being the creator of all' and the rest, — mentioned in the pas- sages: " ' That which is the Plenty is, verily, the immortal' — ' Sir, On what is it established ? ' 'On its own greatness ' " (Chand. 7.24.1), '"He alone is below'" (Chand. 7.25.1), 'From the soul the vital- breath' (Chand. 7.26.1) and so on, — are appropriate on the part of the Highest Self alone, so it is established that the Plenty is none but the Highest Self. Here ends the section entitled 'The Plenty' (2). [SO. 1. 3. 10. 166 vedanta-pIrijIta-saurabha adh. 3.] Adhikarana 3: The section entitled 'The im- perishable'. (Sutras 10-12) SCTRA 10 "The Imperishable (is Brahman), because of supporting the end of the ether." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The Imperishable is Brahman. Why ? " Because of its support- ing " the ether, indicated as the support of the effects in past, present and future. Vedanta -kaustubha Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that the Brhadaranyaka passage: 'He said: "That, verily, is the Imperishable'" (Brh. 3.8.8) and so on, refers to Brahman. In the Brhadaranyaka we read: ' "In whom is the ether woven, warp and woof?" He said: "That, verily, Gargi, the Brahmanas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short, non-long, non-red, non-lubricous, without shadow'" (Brh. 3.8.8) and so on. A doubt arises, viz. whether here pradhana is understood by the term 'Imperishable', or the individual soul, or the Supreme Brahman. What is suggested, to begin with ? The prima facie view is as follows : Let pradhana be denoted by the term 'Imperishable' because, to be the supporter of its own effects fits in on its part; and because non- grossness and the rest, too, fit in on its part, it being admitted to be without form. Or, let the individual soul be implied by the term 'Imperishable ', since it is possible for it to be the supporter of all non-sentient objects, the objects of its own enjoyment. With regard to it, we reply: The Imperishable is the Supreme Brahman. Why ? " On account of supporting (all things) ending with the ether ", i.e. on account of supporting that which ends with the ether, viz. the group of effects beginning with the earth, or the group of effects, beginning with the earth and ending with the ether. To the query : ' "That, Yajfiavalkya, which is above the heaven, that which is beneath the earth, that which is between these heaven and the earth, that which is past, present and future 1 , in whom is all that woven, * Omits 'acakfata', vide Brh. 3.8.6, p. 108. [aO. 1. 3. 10. ADH. 3.] VBDANTA-KAUSTtJBHA 157 warp and woof?"' (Brh. 3.8.6), the answer being given: '"In the ether alone all that is inter-woven, warp and woof" (Brh. 3.8.7), GargI asked again: ' "In whom, verily, is the ether interwoven, warp and woof"?' (Brh. 3.8.7). Then, the answer given was that the support of (all things), beginning with the earth and ending with the ether, is the Imperishable, in the passage: 'He said: "That, verily, is the Imperishable'" (Brh. 3.8.8) and so on. Thus, on account of supporting the group of effects, beginning with the earth and ending with the ether, known from the above question and answer, the Imperishable is none but Brahman. Or else, (an alternative explanation of the sutra;) "The end ", i.e. the limit or the cause, of the " ether ", meaning the atmospheric ether 1 , is the non-manifest pradhana, — " on account of supporting it ". That is, the Imperishable, — mentioned as the support of that which is indicated as the support of all objects in past, present and future, in the passage beginning : 'That which is above' (Brh. 3.7.7); which is denoted by the term 'ether'; and which has the names 'non- manifest', 'subtle', 'pradhana' and the rest, — is not pradhana, but Brahman alone. 2 COMPARISON Samkara and Bhaskara Interpretation of the term 'ambaranta' different, viz. '(all things) ending with the ether' 8 . Samkara uses the term 'Brahman' here *, although evidently from his point of view Brahman cannot be such a support, but Isvara. 1 I.e. the ethor, in the ordinary sense, as distinguished from the ether which denotes pradhana. 2 Note that the first explanation given by SHnivdsa tallies with the expla- nations of Sumkara and Bhaskara, the second with those of Rdmdnuja and Nimbdrka and others. ' 1§.B. 1.3.10, p. 318. Bh. B. 1.3.10, p. 55. Soe &r%nivd8a above. 4 P. 319, 'Na ca ayam ambaranta-dhrtih Brahmano'nyatra aambhavati' , etc. [SO. 1. 3. 11-12. 158 vedAnta-pArijAta-saurabha adh. 3.] SOTRA 11 " And this (supporting) (belongs to the Lord), on account of command." Vedanta-pSrijata-saurabha " And this " supporting belongs to the Highest Person alone. Why ? Because (the Imperishable, the supporter) is mentioned by Scripture to be a commander, in the passage: 'Verily, at the command of this Imperishable, GargI, the sun and the moon stand held apart' (Brh. 3.8.9 !). Vedanta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. : Very well, let pradhana be not denoted by the term 'Imperishable'. But, as, to be such a support fits in on the part of the individual soul, the enjoyer of material objects; as, possess- ing the attributes of non-grossness and the rest too fits in on its part; and, as, finally, if the individual soul be understood, then an otymo- logical meaning (of the term 'Imperishable') is possible, viz.: 'The Imperishable is that which does not perish, i.e. the individual soul, — let the individual soul alone be implied by the term ' Imperishable ', — the author replies here: — The supporting of the body and the rest alone, — the abode where the individual soul experiences the fruits of its own works, — is possible by the individual soul. " And this " supporting is the work of the Highest Self alone, and not of any one else. Why ? " On account of command ", i.e. because of the mention of command in the passage: 'Verily, at the command of this Imperishable, GargI, the sun and the moon stand held apart' (Brh. 3.8.9) and so on. 'Prakrsta', i.e. unrestricted, 'sasana' is 'praSasana', i.e. unrestricted commanding. 2 SCTRA 12 "And on account of the exclusion of another nature." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha Here, by the term ' Imperishable ' neither pradhana or the indivi- dual soul can be understood. The Supreme Being alone is the meaning i 6, R, Bh, 6K, B. * This explains the word ' praiStanSt' In the sutra. [su. 1. 3. 13. ADH. 4.] VEDlNTA-BARUATA-SAURABHA 159 of the term 'Imperishable'. Why? "On account of the exclusion of another nature ", in the passage: 'Verily, that Imperishable, Gargi, is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the unknown khower' (Brh. 3.8.11 1 ). Vedanta-kaustubha For this reason, too, the Highest Self alone is denoted by the term ' Imperishable '. Why ? " On account of the exclusion of other nature ", i.e. the " nature " "of another ", viz. of pradhana or the individual soul; or the " nature " " of another two " (make) " another nature ", 2 " on account of the exclusion " of that. 3 The concluding passage, viz. '"Verily, that Imperishable, Gargi, is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the unknown knower. None but it is a seer, . . .*, none but it is a thinkor, none but it is a knower. Verily in this Imperishable, Gargi, the ether is inter- woven, warp and woof" ' (Brh. 3.8.11), excludes a nature other than Brahman. Thus, pradhana is excluded on the ground of the attributes of a sentient boing, viz. being a seer and the rest; and the individual soul is excludod on the ground of the teaching that the Being who is unseen by all is the seer of all, and so on. Hence, it is established that by the term 'Imperishable ' the Highest Self alono is understood. Here ends the section entitlod 'The imperishable' (3). Adhikarana 4: The section entitled 'One sees'. (Sutra 13 ) SCTRA 13 " On account of the designation (op His qualities), He IS the object which one sees." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The object which one sees, mentioned in the passago: 'He seos the Person, lying in the city' (Prasna 5.5 6 ), is not Brahma, residing i &, B, Bh, &K, B. * Anya-bhava. 8 This explains the compound ' anya-bhdva-vydvjiteh' . * Omitted portion: 'None else other than it is a hearer'. Vide Brh. 3.8.11, p. 171. * &, B, Bh, gK, B. [SO. 1. 3. 13. 160 VBDiNTA-KATJSTUBHA ADH. 4.] in the Brahma-world and included within the Brahmanda. 1 But the Highest Self alone, the topic of discussion, the Lord of His own special and non-material Brahma-world, is " the object which one sees ". Why ? " On account of the designation " of His qualities in the passage: 'That which is tranquil, ageless, fearless* (Prasna 5.7 2 ) and so on. Vedanta-kaustubha Thus, it has been said that prakrti and the individual soul are not understood by the word 'Imperishable' which denotes Brahman. Now it is being pointed out, — by means of this aphorism, as well as by the text dealing with that topic, — that prakrti (or the material sphere) is rejectible, while the world of the Highest Self is acceptable ; and that the individual soul is the worshipper, one who is approaching (a goal), while the Highest Self is the object to be worshipped and the goal to be resorted to. We find the following text in the Prasruvupanisad of the Athar- vanas, introducing the topic of discussion thus: 'Verily, that, O Satyakama, which is the syllable " om ", is the higher and the lower Brahman. Hence a knower, through this very support, reaches one of these two' (Prasna 5.2), and continuing: " Again, he who meditates on the Highest Person with this very syllable ' om ' of three elements comes to the light in the sun. As a snake is freed from its skin, so, verily, he is freed from sins. He is led by the Saman verse to the world of Brahman. \ He sees the Person, lying in the city, and higher than the highest mass of souls " (Prasna 5.5). Here a doubt arises, viz. whether "the object which one sees", — i.e. the Reality which one sees, in accordance with the declaration, viz. that through the meditation on Him, the worshipper of the three elements, freed from all sins, having come to the sun, and having been led by the Saman verses to the world of Brahman, sees that very Person, lying in the City, — is the four-faced Brahma, the presiding deity of all souls, and indicated before as the 'lower Brahman'; or whether the object which one sees is the Highest Person, denoted by the term 'Supreme Brah- man', the cause of the whole world and the topic of Scripture. The prima facie view is as follows: Let the four-faced Brahma be the * For the nature and constituent of a Brahmarida, vide V.R.M., pp. 32 etseq. * B, 6k, b. [SO. 1. 3. 13. ADH. 4.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 161 object which one sees. As * it has been, stated before that the wor- shipper of the pranava ( = om) of one element and the worshipper of the pranava of two elements respectively attain the world of man and the world of the ether as fruits, so the world of Hiranyagarbha, — who represents the individual souls in their collective aspect, — higher than the ether, should be understood as designated as the fruit belong- ing to the worshipper (of the pranava) of three elements. The object of the perception of a person, who has come to that world, is he (the four-faced) alone, the ruler of that world. It is quite appropriate to hold that the person, residing in that world and representing the individual souls in their collective aspect, is superior to those discrete souls which are embodied beings, yet are superior to the body, the sense-organs, etc. Hence the objoct which one sees is the four-faced Brahma. On this suggestion, we reply : The Highest Self alone, the topic of discussion and the cause of the world, is the object which one sees. Why ? "On account of designation " , i .e . on account of the designation of the qualities of the Highest Self, such as, 'being the object to be attained by the wise', 'being tranquil', 'being ageless', 'being immor- tal', 'being fearless' and the rest, mentioned in the passage: 'Through this very syllable " om " as the support, a knower reaches that which is tranquil, ageless, immortal, fearless, the supreme, the supreme goal' 2 (Prasna 5.7). 'A mass of souls' implies one who has connec- tion with the body and the rest, generated by karmas; and that (viz. connection with the body, etc.) is declared by Scripture to be pertaining to the four-faced Brahma too, in the passage: 'He who first creates Brahma' (Svet. 6.18). Nor is the world of the four-faced Brahma higher than the ether, it being included among the heaven and the rest. The world, mentioned in the passage: 'He sees the Person, lying within the city' (Prasna 5.5), is not the world of Brahma, — otherwise called the 'world of truth' and an abode for the enjoyment of the fruits of works, but is the world of Brahman, — who is the topic of discussion and the object which one sees, — to be approached by the freed, it being indicated as the sleeping-place of the Person, higher than even the 'mass of souls' which itself is higher than all worlds. 1 Here the iatf- suffix implies reason, in accordance with Pan. 3.2.128, SD. K. 3103. * ' Parayaxuim ' not included under the original text. 11 [80. 1. 3. 13. 162 VEDlNTA-XAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.] This very world of the Supreme Brahman is declared as the object to be attained by the wise by another Upanisad of the same Athar- vanas, beginning: '"The place which all the Vedas record, that which all the austerities declare, wishing what people practise chastity, that place I tell you in brief" (Hatha 2.15), and continuing: 'That is the best support, that is the supreme support. By knowing that support, one rejoices in the world of Brahman' (Katha 2.17). That very Upanisad declares the unattainableness of this (world of Brahman) by the non-knower, and its attainableness by the knower; as well as its difference from mundane existence in the passages: 'But he who has not understanding, who is inattentive, and ever impure, does not reach that place, and goes to transmigratory existence. But he who has understanding, who is attentive and ever pure, reaches that place, whence he is not born again. A man, however, who has under- standing as his charioteer, the mind as the rein, reaches the end of the journey, that highest place of Visnu' (Katha 3.7-9). In the Santi- parva, it is said in the beginning of the Harlta-glta: 'Yudhisthira said: " A man of what nature, of what conduct, of what knowledge, of what resort, attains the place of Brahman, that is higher than prakrti and eternal? " Bhlsma said: "He who is engaged in the religious duties in connection with salvation, who is abstemious, who has conquered the senses, attains the supreme place that is higher than prakrti and eternal'" (Maha. 12.9968-9969). 1 From such question and answer by the wisest men, the superiority of the world of Brahman — the object of enquiry — to prakrti, its attainableness only through the religious duties in connection with salvation, and its eternity, are established. Hence, it is established that the object which one sees is Brahman, lying in the city, and higher than prakrti, in its effected and in its causal conditions. Here ends the section entitled 'One sees' (4). COMPARISON Sarnkara Interpretation different, viz. according to him, the question is whether the higher or the lower Brahman is meant here, and not » P. 716, lines 22-23, vol. 3. [sO. 1. 3. 14. ADH. 5.] VEDINTA-PIBIJATA-SAUBABHA 163 whether Brahman or Brahma, the four-faced. The conclusion, of course, is that the higher Brahman is meant. 1 Adhikarana 5: The s.ection entitled 'The small'. (Sutras 14-23) SCTRA 14 "The small (ether) is Bbahman, on account of what FOLLOWS." Vedanta -parijata -saurabha The "small" ether, mentioned in the passage: 'In this city of Brahman is a small lotus, a chamber; small is the ether within it' (Chand. 8.1.1 2 ), can be the Highest Self alone. Why ? "On account of what follows ", i.e. on account of the peculiar qualities of the Highest Self, which are designated subsequently in the passage: 'As large is this ether, so large is that ether within the space. In it both the heaven and the earth are contained. This soul is free from sins, ageless' (Chand. 8.1.3 3 ) and so on. Vedanta-kaustubha Thus, on the ground of the text : ' He sees the Person lying in the city' (Prasna 5.5), 'lying within the city', as well as 'being the object which one sees', fit in on the part of the Highest Self as possessing a manifest auspicious form. In the very same manner, smallness, too, fits in on His part as residing in the abode, viz. the heart-lotus. With this in his mind, the reverend author of the aphorisms says now: We find the following text in the Chandogya immediately after the doctrine of the Plenty, 4 : 'Now what is within this city of Brahman is a small-lotus, a chamber; small is the ether within it. What is within that should be searched for; that, verily, should be enquired into' (Chand. 8.1.1). The meaning of the text, according to us, is as follows: 'what is' within 'this city of Brahman', — i.e. within the body which is the abode where the individual soul, a part of Brahman, enjoys the fruit of its karmas and which is the place where it realizes 1 S.B, 1.3.13, p. 321: 'Kim asmin vakye param Brahma abhidhyatavyam upmlUyata ahasvit aparam Ui'. 2 S, R, Bh, gK, B. » Op. oil. * V.K.. 1.3.8. [80. 1. 3. 14. 164 VEDlNTA-KATJSTTJBHA ADH. 5.] Brahman, — is a " small ", i.e. a tiny 'lotus', viz. the heart, well-known from Scripture ; that very thing is a chamber as it were. In that same chamber, there is a "small", i.e. a tiny, or one who has manifested himself in a subtle form in accordance with the wish of his own devotees who are devoted to none else, 'ether', i.e. one who is pervasive by nature. In that heart-lotus, the small Brahman who is denoted by the term 'ether' 'should be searched for', i.e. should be discriminated as different from the enquirer, as well as from the body; and 'should be enquired into', i.e. should be meditated on repeatedly through the 'hearing' of the Vedanta. Here a doubt arises, viz. whether by the term 'small ether' the elemental ether is to be understood, or the Highest Self. If it be suggested: The elemental ether, because the term 'ether' is well- known to denote the elemental ether, and because the term 'small' too, as implying a subtle object, may be applied to it. It cannot be said that in the text: 'As large is this ether, so large is the ether within the heart' (Chand. 8.1.3), one and the same thing (viz. the ether) cannot reasonably be both the object compared and the object (upa- meya and upamana) with which it is, — because it can appropriately be so on the ground of the distinction of the external and the internal. 1 Or, let the embodied soul, like the point of a spoke only, be the small ether, because it, too, is known from the passage: 'Now this serenity (i.e. serene being) having arisen from this body' (Chand. 8.3.4). Being atomic by nature, it can be fittingly termed 'small'; and, being undefiled by the body, the sense-organs and the rest, it can be fittingly compared to the ether * — We reply: "The small", i.e. the small ether, is none but the Highest Self. Why ? "On account of what follows ", i.e. on account of the reasons contained in the concluding text, i.e. on account of the peculiar qualities of the Highest Self, viz. 'being comparable to the ether', 'being the support of all worlds, beginning with the earth', 'being the soul', 'being free from sins' — and the rest. Thus, in the passage: 'As large is this ether, so large is that ether within the * That is, as the external ether it is the upamana, as the internal ether the upameya. Hence no contradiction is involved. * That is, as the ether remains aloof from the impurities of the world, -though connected with it, so the soul remains aloof from the impurities of the body and the rest, though connected with them. Hence the latter may be compared with the former. [30. 1. 3. 15. ADH. 5.] VEDlNTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA 165 heart' (Chand. 8.1.3) the small ether, i.e. the Supreme Being alone, is compared to the well-known ether, since when two different things can be reasonably held to be the object with which the thing is com- pared and the object compared, it is unreasonable to suppose one and the same thing to be both (viz. upamana and upameya). 'Being the supporter of all effects' too,- mentioned in the passage: 'In it both the heaven and the earth are contained' (Chand. 8.1.3), fits in on the part of the Highest Self alone. The attributes like 'being the soul', 'being free from sins' and the rest, mentioned is the passage: "This soul is free from sins, ageless, deathless, sorrowless, without hunger, without thirst, possessed of true desires, possessed of true resolves' (Chand. 8.1.5), fit in only if the Highest Self be understood. Moreover, after having designated the n on -permanency of tho fruits of works and their incapacity of knowing Him in the passage: 'As here the world won by work perishes, so hereafter the world won by merit perishes' (Chand. 8.1.6), Scripture concludes: 'Now, those who depart, having known the soul here and those true desires, come to have free movement in all the worlds' (Chand. 8.1.6). That is, those worshippers who 'depart' to the other world, 'having known', i.e. having realized 'the soul', i.e. the Supreme Lord callod 'the small', and 'those', i.e. His qualities, come to have free movement in all the worlds. Accordingly, the small ether is the Highest Self, since then alone free movement is explicable on the part of those who know the nature and qualities of the 'small one'. SOTRA 15 "On account op going and of word, for thus it is seen, THRRE IS A MARK AS WELL." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The "going " is mentioned in the text: 'All beings aro going day by day'. (Chand. 8.3.2 *), and the " word " is 'The world of Brahman' (Chand. 8.3.2 2 ), — on account of these two, the 'small one' is ascer- tained to be the Supreme Being. The daily going is "seen thus" in another scriptural text too, viz.: '"Then, my dear, he comes to be * g, B, Bh, &K, B. '" " * Op. eit. [SO. 1. 3. 15. 166 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] united with the Existent'" (Chand. 6.8.1 *). If the karmadharaya compound be understood, 2 then Brahman alone is 'the mark', i.e. the primary meaning of the word ('Brahma-loka') " as well ". Vedanta-kaustubha For this reason too, says the author, the small ether is the Highest Self. The subsequent reasons are being amplified now. In the text about the small-ether, viz.: 'Just as those who do not know the place move again and again over a hidden treasure of gold, but do not find it, so these beings are going day by day to that world of Brahman but do not find it, for they are carried away by untruth' (Chand. 8.3.2), the phrase : 'are going day by day ' states the "going ' ' ; and the "word" is: 'this world of Brahman', (Brahma-loka) — on account of these two, it is known that the small ether is the Highest Self. The sense is that because of the going of the individual souls, indicated by the term 'beings', to Brahman daily during deep sleep when all the sense-organs are dissolved ; and because of the word ' world of Brahman', the small ether is ascertained to be none but the Highest Self, as the individual soul is one who approaches (and hence cannot be the goal approached), and as going is not appropriate on the part of the elemental ether. "For thus it is seen ", i.e. the going of all beings to the Highest Self alone day by day during the state of deep sleep, as well as their return therefrom, are found, in the very same manner, in other passages too, viz. : '"So exactly, my dear, all these beings, being united with the Existent, do not know; we have become united with the Existent"' (Chand. 6.9.2), '"Having come back from the Exis- tent, they do not know: We have come back from the Existent"' (Chand. 6.10.1). In the very same manner, the term 'world of Brah- man', too, is found applied to the Highest Self, as in the passage: '"This is the world of Brahman, O king," stid he' (Brh. 4.3.32). The phrase 'that' (Chand. 8.3.2) indicates the going of all beings there (viz. to Brahman). That is, the term 'world of Brahma' (Brahma-loka), — stated to be in apposition with the word 'that' which denotes the 'small one', and explained as' a karmadharaya compound thus: 'the world which is Brahman', — is "a mark ", i.e. a convincing proof, that the small ether is the Highest Brahman. 1 Op. cit. * See below V.K. [SO. 1. 3. 16. ADH. 5.] VEDANTA-PABIJiTA-SAUBABHA 167 SOTRA 16 "And on account of suppobting (the Lord is the small etheb), because this gbeatness is observed in Him (from another scbiptural passage)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The holding apart, mentioned in the passage: 'He is the bridge, a limitary support of these worlds' (Chand. 8.4.1 *), fits in if the small ether be the Highest Self, because "this greatness is observed" "in him ", i.e. in the Highest Self alone who is called 'a support' 2 on the authority of another scriptural passage, viz« : 'At the command of this Imperishable, G&rgl, the sun and the moon stand, held apart' (Brh. 3.8.9 3 ). Vedanta-kaustubha On account of the following reason, viz. : " On account of support- ing ", by the word 'small ether', the Highest Self alone is to be under- stood here. Compare: 'Now, he who is the soul is the bridge, a limitary support for keeping these worlds apart' (Chand. 8.4.1). The sense is: (The soul is) 'a bridge', — or, the cause of the non-inter- mixture, — and a 'limitary support', — or that which separates, — 'for keeping apart' — i.e. for preventing the intermixture or splitting asunder 'of these worlds', or of the worlds separated from one another as relating to the soul (i.e. internal), and as relating to the gods (i.e. external). The sense is that as " this greatness", viz. supporting, "is observed" in the Highest Self in another scriptural passage, so here, too, the small ether, the limitary support of all the worlds, is known to be the Highest Self. The other scriptural passage is to the effect : ' At the command of this Imperishable, G&rgl, the sun and the moon stand held apart ' (Brh. 3.8.9). Similarly, there is a passage : ' He is the Lord of all, he is the Lord of the worlds, he is the bridge, the limitary support for keeping these worlds apart ' (Brh. 4.4.22 4 ). i &, R, Bh, Sk, b. 2 C.S.S. ed. slightly different, p. 14, viz. : 'A*ya ca mahimno dhftyd- khyasya . . . .' a S, R, Bh. 4 Correct quotation: 'E»a sarveivara era bh&Mhipatir em bhuta-palah era tetub . . .'. Vide Brh. 4.4.22, p. 246. [SC. 1. 3. 17. 168 vedInta-parijata-sauhabha adh. 5.] COMPARISON Ramanuja, Srikanfha and Baladeva This is sutra 15 in the commentaries of Ramanuja and iSrikantha. Resulting meaning same, although the meaning of words different, viz.: 'asya' means 'of the Lord' and 'asmin' means in the small ether. Hence the siitra: 'Because supporting, which is a greatness of him (viz. the Lord), is observed in it (viz. in the small ether) '- 1 SCTRA 17 "And because it is well-known." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha And because the word 'ether' is well-known to be denoting the Highest Self as well, — as in the passages: 'The ether, verily, is the revealer of name and form' (Chand. 8.14.1 2 ), 'All these beings, forsooth, arise from the ether alone' (Chand. 1.9.1 8 ), — the small ether is none but the Highest Self. Vedanta-kaustubha Again, the small ether should be understood to be none but the Highest Self. Why? Because the word 'ether' is well-known to be denoting the Highest Self as well. Where? In the passages: 'The ether, verily, is the revealer of name and form' (Chand. 8.14.1), 'All these beings, forsooth, arise from the ether alone' (Chand. 1.9.1). COMPARISON Srikantha Interpretation different, viz.: 'Because (the Lord) is celebrated (in other Upanisads, viz. Mahopanisad, Kaivalya-upanisad and the rest), to be an object to be worshipped as abiding in the small lotus, (the small ether is the Lord) ' *. 1 $ri. B. 1.3.15, pp. 308-9, Part 1. ' &K. B. 1.3.15, pp. 437-8, Part 5; B.B. 1.3.16. * 6. « g, R, Bh. * &K., 1.3.16, p. 438, Part 5. [sO. 1. 3. 18-19. ADH. 5.] VEDlNTA-PARLTlTA-SAURABHA 169 1 SCTRA 18 "If it be objected that on account of a reference to the other, (viz. the individual soul), he (is the small ether), (we reply:) no, because of impossibility." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha If it be objected that " on account of a reference " to the individual soul as well in the middle of the text about the 'small one ', viz. in the passage: 'This serene being having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form. This is the soul, said he' (Chand. 8.3.4 x ), let the individual soul be the 'small one', — (We reply:) 'no', "because of the impossibility " of the qualities of freedom from sins and the rest, 2 on the part of the individual soul. Vedanta - kaustubha If it be objected that " on account of a reference " to the individual soul by tho term 'serene being' in the middle of the text about the small ether, viz. in the passage: 'This serene being, having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form. This is the soul, said he. This is immortal, fearless' (Chand. 8.3.4), let "him " alone be the small ether, — (We reply:) 'No'. Why? "Because of impossibility", i.e. because the above-mentioned qualities of freedom from sins and the rest are impossible on the part of the individual soul. St)TRA 19 "If it be objected that from what is subsequent, (the individual soul may be meant here), (we reply:) but (that subsequent passage refers to the soul so far only) it has its real nature manifest." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha If it be objected that " from what is subsequent ", i.e. from Prajapati's statement referring to the individual soul, the eight-fold » 6, R, Bh, l§K, B. a Vide ChSnd. 8.1.5. [SO. 1. 3. 19. 170 vedAnta-katjstubha adh. 6.] qualities of freedom from sins and the rest are known to belong to the individual soul as well, hence let it alone be the small ether, — We reply: The Highest Self, endowed with the above-mentioned qualities and having His real nature ever manifest, is the 'small one' ; but not the individual soul, having its real nature manifest, 1 (not always, but only during release). Vedanta-kaustubha Here the word 'small' is to be supplied from the main aphorism, 2 and the words 'he, no' from the preceding one. 8 If it be objected: This is impossible. "From what is subsequent " to the doctrine of the 'small', i.e. from the statement of Prajapati, the individual soul should be known as endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest. Hence, here too let it alone be the 'small one', endowed with the qualities of freedom from sins and the rest, — (We reply:) " No ". There, viz. in the passage : 'Having attained the form of Highest light, it is completed in its own form' (Chand. 8.3.4), the individual soul which has its real nature manifest, is intended to be designated. The word "but" (in the sutra) clearly indicates the great difference between that which has its real nature manifest and the ' small one ' the real nature of which is ever unveiled and which is ever beyond the conventional distinctions of bondage and release. Thus the statement of Prajapati (Chand. 8.7.1) teaches the individual soul as possessing the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, — the soul which has its real attributes concealed by the states of waking and the rest, rooted on karmas, meritorious or non- meritorious, and existent from all eternity; and which has its real nature manifest through the attainment of the Highest Self, caused by meditation on Him. But the text about the 'small one' (Chand. 8.1.5) teaches the Highest Self as possessing the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, — the Self who has His nature and attributes ever manifest, and who is denoted by the term 'small ether'. 3 1 The contrast is between the nitydvirbhuta-svarupa Paramatman and the avirbhuta-svarupa fivatman. See V.K. below. » Via. Br. Su. 1.3.14. s viz. Br. Su. 1.3.18. a That is, the Highest Self is always possessed of the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, while the individual soul is not always possessed of them, but only when its real nature oomes to be manifested. Hence the 'small one', which is always possessed of these attributes cannot bo the individual soul. [sO. 1. 3. 19. ADH. 5.] VBDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 171 The meaning of the scriptural text (Chand. 8.3.4) is as follows: Just as the eye, — enveloped in deep darkness and hence unable to perform its own special function of making known objects like clothes, ornaments and the rest, — having attained the ever-unenveloped sun, is completed in its own form and able to perform its own special function of manifesting its own objects, — so the individual soul, 'having attained', i.e. having completely attained, near itself, the 'highest', i.e. the Being different from the sentient individual soul and the non-sentient, 'light', i.e. the real nature of the Whole the revealer of all, is 'completed' in its real nature as knowledge, different from the body, the sense-organs and the rest and endowed with its own bliss, — as such it is said to have its real nature manifest (avir- bhuta-svarupa). The word ' avirbhtita-svarupa ' is to be explained as 'one whoso real nature has become manifest'. Moreover, as 'being a bridge', 'being the limitary support of all worlds', and 'being the controller of the sentient and the non-sentient ' are not possible even on the part of the individual soul which has its real nature manifest, so the small ether can never be supposed to be the individual soul. In the doctrine of the 'small' (Chand. 8.1.5), the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, which are special to one who has this real nature ever manifest, are mentioned; while in the doctrine taught by Prajapati (Chand. 8.7.1), only those that are special to that which has its nature manifest (and not ever manifest). Hence, the reason 'because of impossibility' (mentioned in Br. Su. 1.3.18) remains in force. COMPARISON Sarnkara Interpretation different, viz.: 'If it be said ..... (then we reply) No, but (the passage in question refers to the soul only so far) as its real nature has become manifest (i.e. so far it has become Brahman). 1 Thus, according to Samkara, the statement of Prajapati (Chand. 8.7.1) does not really refer to the individual soul, but to Brahman. According to Nimbarka, however, as we have seen, it refers to the freed soul, which too is different from Brahman. l 3.B. 1.3.19, pp. 333 et seg. [SO. 1. 3. 20. 172 vedanta-pIrijAta-saurabha adh. 5.] Bhaskara He, too, points out that the statement of Prajapati does not refer to the individual soul as such, but to the soul which has become the Supreme Soul in nature. 1 SCTRA 20 "And the reference has a different purpose." Vedanta -parij ata -saurabha "The reference" to the individual soul is for showing that the Supreme Soul is the cause of the manifestation of the real nature of the individual soul. Vedanta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. : If the small ether be the Supreme Soul having His real nature ever-manifest, then the reference to the indivi- dual soul in the text about the 'small one', viz. in the passage: 'Now, this serene being, having arisen from this body' (Chand. 8.3.4), must have a purport, — the author replies here : The word " and " (in the sutra) implies possibility. Just as on attaining the sun, the eye, overpowered so long by darkness, is com- pleted in its real form, so on attaining the highest light, i.e. the small ether, the individual soul, having so long its real nature and qualities like freedom from sins and the rest hidden by the beginningless maya, is completed in its own special form . Thus , the reference to the individual soul in the statement of Prajapati is simply for showing that the small ether is the cause of the manifestation of the real form of the individual soul, and not for proving that the small ether is the individual soul itself. COMPARISON Samkara and Bhaskara Interpretation different, viz. : 'And the reference (to the individual soul) has a different purpose (viz. the determining of the nature of Brahman) ' 2 . According to Nimbarka, however, as we have seen, 1 Bh. B. 1.3.19, p. 58. 8 g.B. 1.3.20, p. 339; Bh. B. 1.3.20, p. 58. [su. 1. 3. 21-22. ADH. 5.] VEDlNTA-FARIJlTA-SAURABHA 173 tho purpose is to show that Brahman is the cause of the manifestation of the real nature of the soul. StJTRA 21 "If it be objected that on account of the scriptural declaration of what is small (the lord is not the small ether), (we reply:) that has been said." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha "If it be objected that on account of the scriptural declaration of what is small ", tho all-pervasive Being cannot be understood here, — (we reply:) the answer to this has already been given. 1 Vedanta-kaustubha " If it be objected that on account of the scriptural declaration of what is small " in tho passage: ' Small is the ether within it' (Chand. 8.1.1), let the individual soul alone, which is atomic in size, be the 'small one', — (We reply :) The answer to this has been given under the aphorism : 'Because (Brahman) is to be conceived thus, as in the case of the ether' (Br. Su. 1.2.7). SCTRA 22 " And because of the imitation of that." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha "And because of the imitation " " of that ", i.e. of that which has its real nature ever manifest, in accordance with the passage: 'He alone shining, everything shines' (Katha 5.15; Mund. 2.2.10 ; Svet. 6.14 2 ), the individual soul, the imitator, cannot be the 'small one ', having its real nature ever-manifest. Vedanta-kaustubha The author says that for this reason, too, the individual soul is not the small ether. 1 Vide Br. Su. 1.2.7. * 6, Bh. [sC. 1. 3. 23. 174 VEDANTA-PiBIjlTA-SAUBABHA ADH. 5.] Because of the imitation "of that ", i.e. of the small ether having the eight-fold attributes ever manifest, by that which has its attributes of freedom from sins and the rest manifest (and not ever manifest) the 'small one ' is none but the Highest Self. Just as in the Mundaka, declaring the imitation of the Lord by all in the passage: 'He alone shining, everything shines' (Mund. 2.2.10); and declaring further that everything is to be manifested by the Lord in the passage: 'Through his light all this shines' (Mund. 2.2.10), all things which are imitators and objects to be manifested cannot be the object which is imitated and the object which manifests, — so the individual soul, mentioned by Prajapati, and an imitator, cannot be Brahman, denoted by the term 'small', and object to be imitated. COMPARISON Sarpkara and Bhaskara Interpretation different, viz. according to them, the sutras 22-23 form a new adhikarana, designating that the passage Mundaka 2.2.10 refers not to a luminous substance, but to the Supreme Soul. 1 But according to Nimbarka, they form parts of the preceding adhikarana, setting forth additional arguments as to why the 'small ether' is none but the Supreme Soul. Ramanuja, Srikanfha and Baladeva According to all, the word 'anukrteh' means 'because of simi- larity'. That is, the individual soul is not the 'small one' or Brahman, because it is only similar to Him. 2 SOTRA 23 "MoBEOVEB (THIS IS) DECLABED BY SMBTI." 3 Vedanta-parijata-saurabha Also Smrti declares: 'They have come to attain equality of attributes with me' (Gita 14.2 *). i g.B. 1.3.22, pp. 340 if.; Bh. B. 1.3.22, pp. 58 a seq. * &rl. B. 1.3.21, p. 313, Part 1, ' Tad-anukdras tat-samyam' . &K. B. 1.3.21, pp. 444-5, Part 5; G.B. 1.3.22. * C.S.S. ed., p. 15, reads ' Api smaryyate'. * R, B. [SO. 1. 3. 24. ADH. 6.] VEDANTA-PIRIJITA-SAURABHA 175- Vedanta-kaustubha Smrti declares the equality of tho individual soul, freed from all bondage, with the Supreme Soul, in the passage : ' They have come to attain equality of attributes with me' (Gita 14.2). Hence, it is established that the small ether is none but the Supreme Soul. Here ends the section entitled 'The small' (5). COMPARISON Samkara and Bhaskara Reading different, viz. 'Api ca smaryyate'. Interpretation different, viz. — 'Further, Smrti (viz. Gita 15.12, etc.) declares (the Soul to be the cause of tho manifestation of all)'. 1 Ramanuja and Baladeva Reading: ' Api smaryyate'. 2 Srikanfha Reading: 'Api ca smaryyate', i.e. 'Moreover Smrti declares (that the Lord is to be meditated on as abiding in the heart-lotus 8 )'. Adhikarana 6: The section entitled 'What is measured'. (S u t r as 24 - 2 5 ) SCTRA 24 " On account of the text only, what is measured (is the Lord)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha " What is measured", i.e. what is of the size of a thumb, is none but the Highest Person, " on account of the text " : ' The Lord of past and future' (Katha 4.13 4 ). 1 6, B. 1.3.23, p. 343; Bh. B. 1.3.23, p. 69. 2 &rl. B. 1.3.23, p. 313, Port 1; G.B. 1.3.23. » &C. B. 1.3.23, p. 445, Part 5. * S, R, Bh, 6k, B. tsO. 1. 3. 24. 176 VHDINTA-KAT/8TUBHA ADH. 6.] Vedanta-kaustubha Thus, it has been established that Brahman is to be meditated on as the 'small one'. Now, the author points out that Brahman is to be meditated on as of the size of merely a thumb. In the Katha-valll, we read: 'The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, dwells in the midst of the soul' (Katha 4.12); again: 'The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, smokeless like light' (Katha 4.13); again: 'The Person, of the sizo of merely a thumb, the inner soul, is ever seated in the heart of beings' (Katha 6.17). Here, a doubt arises as to whether the Person of the size of merely a thumb is the individual soul or the Highest Person. The prima facie view is as follows : The Person of the size of merely a thumb is the individual .soul in accordance with the Svet&svatara-text, viz. ; 'The lord of the vital-breaths, who is of the size of merely a thumb and of a form like the sun, moves about through his own works' (Svet. 5.7<^-8a); as well as in accordance with the Smrti passage, viz.: 'Then Yama drew forth, by force, from the body of Satyavana, the person, of the size of merely a thumb, tied to the noose and brought under his control' (Maha. 3.16763 1). With regard to this, we reply: "What is measured", i.e. the Person of the size of merely a thumb, mentioned in the Katha-valli, is none but the Supreme Soul. Why ? " On account of the text", i.e. on account of the text: 'The lord of past and future' (Katha 4.13). The sense is this: Although 'being of the size of merely a thumb', mentioned in the above Scripture and Smrti texts, is here perceived to be a characteristic mark of the individual soul, yet that mark is set aside, 2 — this is the sense. If it be objected: It being impossible for the individual soul, which is by nature atomic in size, to be of the size of a thumb, and there being the mark: 'tied to the noose', the individual soul can be of the size of merely a thumb only if its subtle body be meant. 3 But it i P. 806, line 6, vol. 1. * That is, although in the above scriptural and Smrti texts, the individual soul has been designated as of the size of a thumb, yet in other numerous passages, it is designated as of the size of an atom merely. Henoe, the above description is set aside. » That is, since the individual soul cannot be of the size of a thumb, being declared to be atomic in size, the designation of it as of the size of a thumb merely means that its subtle body is so, and not that it itself is so. [sfl. 1. 3. 25. ADH. 6.] VEDANTA-PlRIJiTA-SAURABHA 177 is impossible for Brahman, the topic of discussion, to be of the size of merely a thumb, even though repeatedly taught by Scripture, — (We reply:) No, it being possible for Brahman to be so, in accord- ance with the wish of His devotees, and on account of His connection with place (viz. the heart). With regard to this point, a preceding aphorism (viz. Br. Sfl. 1.2.7) may be consulted. Moreover, on account also of a text referring to the Person of the size of merely a thumb, viz. : 'Let one draw him forth from his own body with firmness, as a pith from a reed. Let one know him' (Katha 6.17), the Supreme Soul alone is of the size of merely a thumb. Thus, the meaning of the text is as follows: The individual soul, entitled to know Brahman, the agent, endowed with a right discrimination between the soul and tho non-soul, — implied by the phrase: 'from his own body', — 'should draw forth', i.e. should lift up or put outside, — through intense prayer again, — 'him', i.e. the Person of the size of a thumb, the object and known first through meditation to be within the heart, 'from his own body', i.e. from the body known as his own, 'as the pith from a reed'; then 'he should know him with firmness'. If this be so, the Person of the size of merely a thumb, the object to be worshipped, must be other than the worshipper himself. SCTRA 25 " But (the Lord is said to be of the size of merely a thumb) in reference to the heart (of men), because men (alone) are entitled (to scripture)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The Lord can very well be of the size of merely a thumb, " in reference to the heart" of the worshippers. To the objection, viz. The size of the heart in animals being not fixed, how can Brahman be of the size of a thumb in reference to the heart ? — the author replies: " Because men (alone) are entitled (to Scripture) ". Vedanta-kaustubha The author is justifying the contention that Brahman can be of the size of merely a thumb. 12 [SO. 1. 3. 25. 178 VEDlNTA-KATJSTUBHA ADH. 6.] Even an all-pervasive Being can be of the size of merely a thumb, " with reference to the heart ", i.e. with reference to the heart, or the heart-lotus which is of the size of merely a thumb, of His own devotees, devoted to Him alone and to none else. The sense is that this designation is indeed proper like the designation of the Lord as 'one who makes three strides' (Trivikrama), in reference to the three worlds. 1 Or else, (an alternative explanation of the word " hrdyapeksa- ya"): As from the word " heart " (" hrd ") alone the size of that which is within it (viz. the Lord) is known, the words " in reference to " ("apeksaya") are to be understood as: 'in reference to tho worshippers', i.e. in accordance with their wish. 2 To the objection, viz. As the size of the heart differs in accordance with the difference of living creatures, the text about (the Person of the size of merely) a thumb cannot be explained in reference to the heart, — we reply: "Because men (alone) are entitled" to Scripture. This is the meaning : 8 ' That to which men are entitled ' (make ' manusyadhikara '), ' the state of that ' (make ' manusyadhikaratva'), on account of that (make ' manusyadhikara tvat ' ) . The meaning of the scriptural text concerning (the Person of the size of merely) a thumb is explicable in reference to the heart of men. Although Scripture is of a universal application, 4 yet as men alone can be worshippers and seekers, they alone are entitled to it. Hence, no contradiction arises here even if the hearts of elephants and lice be not of the size of merely a thumb, as they are not entitled to works enjoined in Scrip- ture and Smrti, as established in the sixth chapter, determining the conditions of being entitled to sacrifices and so on. 6 Thus, it is 1 'Trivikrama' is an epithet of Vu&u, who paced the three worlds in three steps in His Vamana or Dwarf incarnation. The sense is, that just as the all- pervading Lord is said to have three strides only, so He may be said to be of the size of a thumb only. * I.e. the Lord manifests Himself as of the size of a thumb to please his devotees. * The compound ' mamtsyddhikdratvdl' is to be explained as follows. * That is, scriptural mandates are to be followed by all. « Vide Pu. MI. Su. 6.1.4-5, pp. 504-7, Part 1. [sO. 1. 3. 26. ADH. 7.] VEDlNTA-PARIJlTA-SAURABHA 179 established that the Supreme Soul alone is the Person of the size of merely a thumb. Here ends the section entitled ' What is measured' * (3). Adhikarana 7: The section entitled 'The deity'. (Sutras 26-30) StJTRA 26 " Even those who are above them (i.e. men) (are entitled to the worship of brahman), (so) badarayana (holds), because of possibility." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The gods and the rest also, who are above men, are entitled to such a worship of Brahman, — so thinks the reverend " Badarayana." Vedanta-kaustubha It has been said in the last section that the text about the Person of the size of merely a thumb is explicable in reference to the heart of men, as men are entitled to Scripture. Now, incidentally, the question as to whether or not gods too are entitled to the worship of Brahman is being considered. In the Brhadaranyaka, we read: 'Whoever among the gods was awakened to this, he alone became that; likewise among the sages' (Brh. 1.4.10). (The sense is:) Whoever among the gods, and similarly among the sages 'was awakened', i.e. directly perceived Brahman, 'he alone' attained the nature of Brahman. Here, on the doubt, viz. whether or not the gods are entitled to the worship of Brahman, which is a means to attaining His nature, if the suggestion be : As men are entitled to Scripture ; and as Indra and the rest are incapable of practising meditation, — seeing that they, whose bodies consist of sacred texts, are not possessed of physical bodies, 2 — the worship of Brahman is not possible on the part of the gods, — we reply: Such a worship of Brahman is possible on the part of gods as well, who are "above" men, — so the reverend "Badarayana" thinks. Why? 1 The seotion entitled ' What is measured ' is resumed in sutra 1.3.40. 8 That is, in order that one might carry on meditation, one must have a physical body, which a god lacks. Hence a god cannot practise meditation. [SO. 1. 3. 26. 180 VEDlNTA-KAUSTT/BHA ADH. 7.] " On account of possibility," i.e. because the worship and the like of Brahman, leading to salvation which is characterized by the attainment of Brahman and is preceded by the cessation of all retributive experience due to their own works, is possible on their part as well. Thus, although they have supermundane and colestial enjoyment, yet since such an enjoyment is subject to the faults of non-permanency, surpassability and the rest, its cessation, one day or other, is possible ; hence, a desire for salvation, too, is possible on their part, by reason of their learning the unsurpassability, supreme blissfulness and perma- nency of the attainment of the nature of Brahman ; and finally through this desire for salvation, a worship of Brahman, too, is possible on their part 1 there being proofs establishing their right to the worship of Brahman, viz. the texts: 'For one hundred and one years, forsooth Indra dwelt with Prajapati, practising chastity' (Chand. 8.11.3), 'Verily, Bhrgu, the son of Varuna, approached his father Varuna,- (with the request) "Sir, teach me Brahman'" (Tait. 3.1.1) and so on. Similarly, corporality, too, is possible on their part in accordance with text about the evolution of name and form, 2 as well as in accord- ance with sacred formulae, explanatory and glorificatory passages and tradition. 3 Thus it is declared by Scripture: 'When about to say "vasat", he should meditate on that deity for whom the offering is taken' (Ait. Br. 11.8*). Here, no meaning of the text being possible unless the god referred to, be possessed of a body, 6 the god must be understood to have a body. In tradition too, the sun, the moon, Vasu and the rest are well-known to have bodies. The sons of Kunti were born from gods like Dharma and the rest, possessed of bodies. 8 * That is, just as in the case of a man, the non -permanency of the earthly enjoyment leads him to seek for salvation, which yields a permanent fruit, and that, again, leads him to worship the Lord as a means thereto, so exactly the non-permanency of the heavenly enjoyment leads a god to seek for salvation, which leads him to worship the Lord. * Vide Chand. 6.3.2-4. 3 Mantras, artha-vdda and itihdsa. * Ananddsrama ed., p. 305. These are mantra and artha-vdda. * Because, we cannot meditate on the deity, unless he possesses a body. To meditate is to meditate on a certain definite form. Cf. &rl. B. 1.3.25. 'Na hi nirviiefa-devatd dhiyam adhirohati.'' 8 Kunti, the wife of Pdndu, had, with his approval, three sons, Yudhiafhira, Bhima and Arjuna, by the three deities, Dharma, Vayu and Indra respectively. Vide MahS. 1.4760 et seq. (chap. 123), pp. 174 et seq., vol. 1. [aO. 1. 3. 27. ADH. 7.] VEDINTA-PIRIJITA-SAURABHA 181 In the Puranas, too, there is a multitude of legends of various kinds about them, possessing bodies. The verses from those chapters are not quoted here for fear of increasing the bulk of the book. SCTRA 27 " If it be objected that (if the gods be possessed of bodies) a contradiction with regard to works (will result), (we reply:) no, because of the observation of the assumption of many (bodies by the gods, etc.)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha If it be objected : Since the worship of Brahman is not possible without a body, their corporality must surely be admitted. But if that be so, it will give rise to a " contradiction with regard to works ", — (We reply:) "no" such objection can arise. Why? "Because of the observation of the assumption " simultaneously of many bodies even by one and the same deity. Vedanta-kaustubha If it be objected: Although the corporality of the gods, as of us, is an inevitable conclusion, as the activities in connection with the repeated practice of 'hearing', 'thinking* and 'meditating' are possible only on the part of one who is endowed with a body, sense-organs and mind, and as in that way alone it is possible for them to be the bene- factors of sacrifices, through their actual presence, like sacrificing priests and the rest, 1 — yet if they be possessed of bodies, there will be " a contradiction with regard to works ", viz. sacrifices and the rest, since the simultaneous presence of one body (i.e. of one god) in many sacrifices is impossible, 8 — (We reply :) " No ". Why ? " Because of the observation of many worships." 8 " Many ", i.e. of various forms, " worship ", " on account 1 That is, if gods be possessed of bodies, then they may themselves be present at sacrifices, like the priests, and conduce to their proper performance, etc. * That is, one and the same god is simultaneously invoked in many sacrifices, but evidently, he cannot be simultaneously present in many places. * The compound ' aneka-protipatter darianat' is explained as follows. [SO. 1. 3. 27. 182 VBDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] of the observation of that". Thus, just as one and the same teacher is found to be saluted simultaneously by many saluting dis- ciples, just as one and the same sun is found to be worshipped simul- taneously by many worshipping men, so there is no inconsistency in supposing that different sacrificers offer their own objects to one and the same corporal deity who abides in his own place. Hence no harm is done to sacrifices. Or else, there may be another construction of the phrase " aneka- pratipatter dar&inat ". If it be objected that there will be " a con- tradiction with regard to works" in the stated way, — (we reply:) " No ". Why ? " On account of the assumption of many ", i.e. on account of the assumption of many forms, or on account of the attainment of many bodies, by one and the same person who is perfected by Yoga. Why? "Because of the observation" of it in Scripture. Thus, in the Moksa-dharma, 1 a question being put forth concerning the Samkhya and the Yoga thus: ' " Reverend father, it behoves you to tell me in particular about the Samkhya and the Yoga. Everything, knower of sacred duties, is known to you, best among the Kurus " ! ' (Maha. 12.11037 2 ), the text, having set forth an eulogy of the Samkhya and the Yoga, goes on: ' " Those who are endowed with the power of the Yoga and are self-controlled and majestic, enter, Partha, through Yoga into Prajapatis, sages, gods and the great elements. Neither Yama, nor the angry Antaka, 8 nor the supremely mighty Mrtyu lords it, king, over the Yoga of unmeasured might. A yogin, mightiest of the Bharatas, can, by reason of attaining strength,* create many bodies for himself, and move about the world by them all. By some he may attain (i.e. enjoy) objects, by others, he may practise a severe penance, and he may again contract them, as the sun does the multitude of its rays ' (Maha. 12.11060-64 6). • 1 Name of a section of the twelfth book of the Mahdbharata, from chap. 174 to the end. » P. 754, line 27, vol. 3. 3 Name of Yama, the god of Death. * Here the rfotr-sufflx implies reason. * P. 755, lines 20-23, vol. 3. [sO. 1. 3. 28. ADH. 7.] VEDlNTA-PABLTATA-SAURABHA 183 SCTRA 28 " If it be objected that (a contradiction will result) with begabd to word, (we reply '.) no, on account of the origin (op everything) prom it, on account op pebception (i.e. Scripture) and inference (i.e. Smbti)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha If it be objected that if the corporality of the gods be admitted, a contradiction will result with regard to the Vedic words denoting them, as these words will become meaningless prior to the origin of the objects (viz. the gods) denoted by them and subsequent to their destruction, — (We reply:) No such contradiction results, "on account of the origin" of the objects (viz. the gods and the rest) "from it", i.e. from the words alone, denoting eternal prototypes or forms, and serving as reminders to the thought of Prajapati, in accordance with the following scriptural and Smrti texts: 'He evolved name and form by means of the Veda' (Tait. Br. 2.6.2.3 *), 'A celestial word, without beginning and end, eternal, and composed of the Vedas was omitted by the self -born in the beginning, whence proceeded all activities' (Maha. 12.8534 *). Vedanta-kaustubha Here, the word 'contradiction' is to be supplied from the preced- ing aphorism. If it be objected: Very well, there may not be any contradiction with regard to works if the gods be possessed of bodies, still there may be contradiction " with regard to the words " denoting gods and the rest, i.e. with regard to the Vedic forms. That is, on account of the non-eternity of the bodies of the gods, — they being due to karmas — as well as on account of the eternity of the Vedic texts, the eternal relation between a word and its meaning will be » P. 275, line 9, vol. 2. Beading ' . . . . rupe ....'. B, SiC. » P. 666, line 22, vol. 3. 6, B, Bh. Beading: ' An&di-nidhand vidyd . . .' Vangavaai ed. reads: 'Anddi- nidhand vidyd . . . Adau deva-mayi vidyd . . .' P. 1635, vol. 2. Efamkara, Riimdnuja and Bhdskara too read ' Anddi-nidhand nityd . . .' like Nimbarka. [stT. 1. 3. 28. 184 VBDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] impossible, and hence a contradiction will result between the object which is limited in time and the word which is true for all times. If it be said that owing to the force of the word, the object too is eternal, — then a contradiction will result with regard to the texts which prove its non-eternity: if it be said that for the sake of the object, the word is non-eternal, — then there will arise a contradiction with regard to the texts which prove its eternity. — (We reply :) " No ". There is no contradiction with regard to the word as well. Why? " On account of the origin from it ", i.e. on account of the origin, or the rise, of the gods and the rest rrom this, i.e. from the Vedic words, denoting the eternal prototypes of gods, etc. and serving as a reminder to the thought of the creator regarding the forms of gods, etc. to be created at the time of each particular creation. Thus, when a certain great personality, who has accumulated a mass of merit and desires to become Prajapati, comes to attain lordship through tho grace of the Lord, he is called 'Prajapati'. At the time of creation when individuals like the former gods and the rest are no more, Prajapati, having learnt the Veda in a manner to be designated hereafter, 1 and having apprehended, like a man arisen from sleep, 2 the particular prototypes of the gods and the rest by means of the lamp-like Veda, i.e. from the Vedic words alone which denote those particular prototypes, creates tho later gods, etc. in accordance with those prototypes. Hence there is no room for the alleged contradiction. If it be objected: What proof is there that Prajapati creates objects after having known their particular forms from the Vedic words ? — we reply : " On account of perception and inference ". " Per- ception " means Scripture, since it is independent of any other proof. " Inference " means Smrti, since it demonstrates the meaning of Scrip- ture, — on account of these two, i.e. on account of Scripture and Smrti. First, the scriptural passage is the following; viz.: 'Prajapati evolved name 8 and form the existent and the non-existent, by means of the Veda' (Tait. Br. 2.6.2.3), likewise: 'He uttered "bhur", he 1 Vide Br. Su. 1.3.30. 8 That is, when a man arises from sleep at night he can see nothing until he lights a lamp. Similarly, at the beginning of creation, the creator knows particular objects from the lamp-like light of the Veda, i.e. knows the forms of those objects and creates them anew accordingly. ■ The text omits 'ndma'. [sC. 1. 3. 28. ADH. 7.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 185 created the earth' (Tait. 2.2.4.2 *), 'He uttered "bhuva", he created the ether' (Tait. Br. 2.2.4.2-3 2 ) and so on. The Smrti passage is contained in the Moksadharma s , and beginning: 'The sages read the Vedas day and night by penance' (Maha. 12.85336 4 ), continues: 'A celestial word, without beginning and end, eternal and composed of the Vedas, was emitted by the self-bom in the beginning, whence proceeded all activities. 5 The Lord created the names of the sages and the creations which are in the Vedas, as well as the various forms of beings and the procedure of acts, from the Vedic words alone in the beginning. At the end of the night, the Unborn One bestowed the names of sages and the creations which are in the Vedas to others. The things that are celebrated in the world, namely, difference of names, austerity, work and sacrifice'. 8 Similarly, there are other passages, viz. 'In the beginning the Supreme Lord created the names and forms of beings, as well as the procedures of actions, from the Vedic word alono' 7 (V.P. 1.5.62), 'In the beginning, he created the names and actions of all as separate, as well as the different established orders, 8 from the Vedic word alone' (Manu. 1.21 B ) and so on. 10 1 P. 195, lines 7-8, vol. 2. 8 Op. cU„ lines 9-10. » See footnote 1, p. 182. * P. 663, line 22, vol. 3. 8 For correct quotation, see footnote 2, p. 183. « P. 666, lines 23-26, vol. 3. Reading: 'Noma rupafi ca bhuldndm karman&H ca pravartayan .... idrvaryy-ante sujatdnam . . . .' Vangavasi ed. reads: ' . . . . pravartanam .... mjcUanam'. P. 1635, vol. 2. 7 P. 50 Variant readings: ' Devadinam cakdra sah '. 8 Cf. Kulluka-bhafpa'a Commentary on the Manu-Smrti (p. 10) : 'Prthak- samsthai ca iti. Laukikti ca vyavasthah, kulalasya ghata-nirmdnam, kuvindasya pafa-nirmapam Uyadika-mbhdgena nirmitava'n.' • P. 9. 10 The sum and substance of the argument is as follows : The prima facie view is that if the gods be possessed of bodies, then, sinco these bodies, are non- eternal, the gods must be so. But the Vedic words which denote the gods are eternal. Hence there cannot be any eternal connection botween the non-eternal gods and the eternal Vedic words, i.e. these Vedic words cannot denote gods and the rest, and must be meaningless. The answer to this objection is as follows : The individual gods are indeed non-eternal, but this does not prove that the eternal Vedio words are meaningless, for what they denote is not the individual (vyakti) which is non-eternal, but the [sO. 1. 3. 29. 186 VEDlNTA-PiMjlTA-SAXTRABHA ADH. 7.] SCTRA 29 " For this very reason, the eternity (of the Vbdas follows)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha The creation by Prajapati is preceded by the (Vedic) word. " For this " reason the " eternity " of the Veda is established. Vedanta-kaustubha Having apprehended the objection, viz. : In spite of the eternity of the Veda, — it not being mentioned as something created, — the Vedic words, denoting the forms of gods and the rest, are concerned with non-eternal objects; and having removed the consequent false notion regarding the non-eternity of these as well, 1 the author is confirming, incidentally, the eternity of the Veda. " The eternity " of the word, i.e. of the Veda, follows " for this very reason ", i.e. also because of its priority to the creation by Pra- japati. Words like ' Vaisvamitra', ' Kathaka ' and so on etymologically mean simply what has been uttered by them. Thus 'what has been said by ViSvamitra is Vaisvamitra', 'what has been said by Katha is Kathaka', and so on. At the end of the universal dissolution, Prajapati, having conceived the forms, powers and the rest of Visva- mitra and others from the Vedic words 'Visvamitra', etc. mentioned in texts like: 'He chooses the maker of sacred formula', 'This is a hymn of ViSvamitra' (Tait. Sam. 5.2.3 2 ) and so on; and having created them as endowed with those particular forms and those parti- cular powers, appoints them to the task of revealing those particular sacred formulae (mantras). Thus given the powers by him, they too, having practised suitable penances, read the sacred formulae, — which form portions of the Veda, which are eternally existent, and which were revealed by Visvamitra and others of former ages, — perfect in their sounds and accents without having read them or learnt them from the recitation of a teacher. type (akfti) which is eternal. It is in accordance with these eternal types, denoted by the eternal Vedic words, that the non-eternal individuals are created anew at the beginning of each creation. 1 That is, since the Vedic words denote non-eternal objects, it might be thought that these words themselves are non-eternal. » P. 24, lines 21-22, vol. 2. [sC. 1. 3. 30: ADH. 7.] VEDANTA-PARUATA-SAURABHA 187 As such, though they are makers of the sacred formulae, the eternity of the Veda is perfectly justifiable. 1 SCTRA 30 "And on account of having the same name and form, (there is) no contradiction even with regard to the recurrence (of the world), on account of perception (i.e. Scripture) and on account of Smrti." Vedanta- parijata-saurabha Thus, there is "no contradiction even with regard to the recur- rence ", or the creation and destruction of the material world. Why ? Because the objects which are to be created in the beginning of each age have the same names and forms as those in the past ages, " on account of perception " (i.e. scriptural text), viz. 'The creator fashioned the sun and the moon as he did before' (Rg. V. 10.190.3 2 ), and 'on account of Smrti', viz. 'Just as the various signs of the seasons are seen to be the very same in their regular recurrence, so are the beings in the successive ages ' (V.P. 1.5.64 8 ). 1 That is, the Vedic mantras are said to be composed by different sages like ViivamMra and so on; and hence it may be thought that these sages being non-eternal, the mantras composed by them must also be so, i.e. the Veda must be non-eternal. But tho fact is that the sages are not really the composers of the mantras, which are really eternal j but when they are said to be the composers of those mantras, it is simply meant that they utter, i.e. reveal the eternally existent mantra in different ages. Thus, e.g. VUvamilra in one particular age utters a mantra which is then said to be V aiivamitra. Then, in course of time, Visvdmitra perishes, but the mantra remains intact ; and in the next age, a new VUvamitra is deputed to utter and reveal the very same mantra and so on. Thus, the mantra itself remains unchanged from all eternity, only its revealers change from age to age. Hence the Vedic mantras are really eternal and so is the Veda. * Pp. 143-4. g, Bh. !§K, B. » P. 50. 6, Bh. Cf. a very similar passage in Maha. 12.8550, p. 667, lines 9-10, vol. 3, which is the same as the above passage, only reads 'Tatha Brahma- haradisu' in place of 'Tatha bhdva yugadisu '. [SO. 1. 3. 30, 188 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] Vedanta -kaustubha To the objection, viz. : The view that Prajapati, having known the particular forms of object by means of the Veda, — in accordance with the maxim of a person arisen from sleep, — x creates them as he did before, fits in the case of the periodical dissolution. 2 But since in the case of the total dissolution 8 there is destruction of everything, how can the priority of the Veda to creation be possible ? How can also its eternity be possible ? How can again the world be preceded by it ? The author replies here : The word " and " (in the sutra) is meant for removing the doubt. The word " even " implies possibility. That is to say, there is no contradiction whatsoever " even with regard to the recurrence " consisting in a continuous stream of creation and dissolution of the material world, i.e. with regard to the first creation at the end a great dissolution. Why ? " On account of having the same name and form." Thus, during the total dissolution, the Lord Vasudeva, the one mass of a multitude of attributes which are special to Him, eternal, infinite and natural, and possessing the sentient and the non-sentient as His powers, having drawn in all the effects, consisting in His own powers (sakti) of the sentient and the non-sentient, as a tortoise draws in its limbs ; and having placed them in Himself in a successive order, opposed to that of creation, abides in silence, like a boy who has gathered up his toys. At that time, the Vedas, the objects denoted by them, as well as the forms of the latter, exist in Him, all blended together with Him. Thus, the entire Universe always exists in its cause, viz. Vasudeva or Brahman, possessing the sentient and the non-sentient as His powers. There is no such thing as absolute destruction, in accordance with the scriptural text : ' " The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second " ' (Chand. 6.2.1). That is, 'My child!' 'this', i.e. the Universe, 'was existent alone', i.e. was non-different from its cause, 'in the beginning', 1 See footnote 2, p. 184. 8 Naimittika-pralaya. s Prakfia-pralaya. Naimiltika pralaya means the dissolution of the three worlds when one day of the Karyya-brahman or Hiraqyagarbha conies to an end; while prakfta pralaya means the dissolution of all objects together with the KS/ryya-brahman himself. Vide Ved. Pari., 7th chap, for the four kinds of pralayas : nitya, naimiltika, prakfta and atyantika. (SO. 1. 3. 30. ADH. 7.] vedAnta-kaustubha 189 i.e. prior to creation; and that, viz. the cause, denoted by the term 'existent', is 'one only, without a second'. He is without an equal or a superior, indicated respectively by the words 'only' and 'without a second'; and He is to be known also as manifold by nature indeed, since He is the substratum of the sentient and the non-sentient which are His powers. Dissolution means the existence of the effect in the cause in a subtle form ; while creation means simply the manifestation of such an effect. At the end of dissolution, the omniscient and all- knowing Lord, having wished first '"May I be many'" (Chand. 6.2.3; Tait. 2.6.1)* having then separated the mass of enjoying souls and the objects of enjoyment, so long merged in Him as His subtle powers; having created all objects from the mahat down to the four- faced Brahma as He did before; having manifested the eternally existent Vedas ; having taught them mentally to Brahma ; and having deputed him to the creation of the Universe, consisting of gods, men and the rest, as it was before, Himself exists as his (Brahma's) inner soul, as declared by the text: 'Having created it, he entered into that very thing' (Tait. 2.6.1). Brahma too, who has attained lordship through His grace, having apprehended their forms from the Vedic words, creates gods and the rest. As such, there is no contradiction even with regard to the recurrence, — this is the sense. Just in this consists the non-human origin of the Veda, it having an eternally existent form like the Supreme Brahman. And its eternity means that one, having remembered a particular order of succession, through the impressions generated in his mind by his prior recitations of the Veda in a fixed order, should recite the Veda in that very order. 1 If it be asked: Whence is this known: We reply: " From percep- tion and from Smrti ". " Perception " means that which destroys the darkness of the heart, i.e. Scripture, viz. 'He who first creates Brahma and he who, forsooth, delivers the Vedas to him, to that Deity, who is the light of self-knowledge, I, desirous of release, take shelter', (Svet. 6.18); similarly: "The creator fashioned, as he did before, the sun and the moon, the heaven, the earth and the ether, and then the sk y' (?g- V. 10.190.3). There is a Smrti passage as well, viz. 'Then 1 That is, the Veda is said to be apauruseya or of non-human origin, and nitya or eternal. Now, the first moans that tho Veda is eternally existent, and is simply revealed, and not created, at the time of each new creation. The second means that it is recited in exactly the same order of succession in different ages all throughout. [sO. 1. 3. 31. 190 VEDINTA-PIRIJITA-SAURABHA adh. 8.] a lotus sprang forth from the navel of the sleeping Deity. In that lotus, holy one, Brahma was born, fully versed in the Vedas and their parts. He was told by Him "Create beings, highly learned one " I ' 'Just as the various signs of the seasons are seen to be the very same in their regular recurrence, so are the beings in the successive stages ' (V.P. 1.5.64), 'Whatever were the names of the sages and (their) knowledge of the Vedas, the same the Unborn One gives to them when they are born at the end of the night. Similarly, the past individual gods are equal to the present gods in names and forms', and so on. Hence, since the gods too may be seekers, there is, nothing contradic- tory in their being entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Therefore it is established that the gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Here ends the section entitled 'The deity' (7). Adhikarana 8: The section entitled 'The honey and the rest'. (Sutras 31-33) OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sutras 31-32) SCTRA 31 " On account of impossibility, (the sun and the rest have) no bight to the (meditations on) the honey and the best, (SO) Jaimini (THINKS)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha It being impossible that the object worshipped can be the wor- shipper himself, the sun and the rest are not entitled to the medita- tions on the honey, etc. — so " Jaimini " thinks. Vedanta-kaustubha Thus, it has been said that the gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Now, the question is being considered whether or not they are entitled to meditations on the honey and the rest. The meditation on the honey is mentioned in the Chandogya: 'This sun, verily, is the honey of the gods' (Chand. 3.1.1) and so on. By the phrase " and so on " (in the sutra) other meditations in which the gods are the objects worshipped are to be understood. Here a [sC. 1. 3. 32. ADH. 8.] VEDINTA-PIRIJATA-SAURABHA 191 doubt arises, viz. Whether or not the gods are entitled to the medi- tations on the honey and the rest. What is reasonable here ? Gods like the sun, Vasu and others have " no right " to the meditation on the " honey and the rest ", — so the teacher " Jaimini " thinks. Why ? " On account of impossibility," i.e. because it is impossible that the sun and the rest which are accepted as the objects to be worshipped in those meditations, can be themselvos worshippers. OPPONENT'S VIEW (concluded) SCTRA 32 " And because of (their) being (worshippers) with regard to the light (i.e. brahman)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha " And because of (their) being " worshippers " with regard to " Brahman, they are not entitled to the honey-meditation and the rest, — this is the prima facie view. Vedanta-kaustubha But it is not to be thought that this being the case the gods are without a Lord, because then they, being all of a mutually equal status, will come to be annihilated through vying with one another, and also because the text : ' Through fear the sun arises ' (Tait. 2.8.1) will come to be contradicted. The fact is that they are the worshippers of the Highest Self and are themselves worshipped by others. So, the opponent points out here: The gods and the rest, who are the objects to be worshipped in- the honey-meditation and the like, being worshippers " with regard to the light ", i.e. of the Supreme Brahman, are not to be taken as the worshippers in the honey-meditation, etc. — this is the sense; as declared by the passage: 'That the gods worship as the Light of lights, as life, as immortal' (Brh. 4.4.16). COMPARISON Sarnkara and Bhaskara Interpretation of the word 'jyotisi' different. The sutra means, according to them: And because (the words 'sun', 'moon', and the [SO. 1. 3. 33. 192 vedanta-parijata-saurabha adh. 8.] rest) refer to the Light. That is, the sun and the rest are not sentient deities, possessed of bodies, but are mere non-sentient spheres of light; and what is non-sentient cannot be, evidently, entitled to any meditation. 1 CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sutra 33) SOTRA 33 " But Badarayana (maintains) the existence (of right on the part of the gods), for there is (possible longing for Brahman on their part)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha With regard to it, the author states the correct conclusion. •" Badarayana " maintains " the existence " of right on the part of the sun, Vasu and the rest, to the honey-meditation and the like as well, " because " a longing for Brahman " is " possible on their parts, conse- quent on the attainment by them of their respective offices in a future age as well, through the worship of Brahman, their Inner Controller. Vedanta-kaustubha Having thus set forth the view of Jaimini, his Holiness, wishing to refute it, is stating his own view. The word " but " precludes the prima facie view. The reverend " Badarayana " maintains " the existence ", i.e. the existence of right on the part of the sun, Vasu and others, to the honey-meditation and the like as well, " because " a longing for Brahman is possible on the part of even -the sun and Vasu and the rest in the present age, consequent on their attainment of sun-hood, Vasu-hood and the rest in a future age as well, through the worship of Brahman, their Inner Controller. Thus, here the worship of Brahman being enjoined both in His effected and causal states, the words 'sun' and the rest, imply Brahman, their Inner Controller; and hence it is possible for the very same Vasu and others to be the objects to be worshipped and attained; since the concluding text: 'He who knows this Brahma-Upanisad ' (Chand. 3.11.3) proves that the words 'sun' and the rest, imply * 6.B. 1.3.32, pp. 336-67; Bh. B. 1.3.32, p. 66. [sO. 1. 3. 33. ADH. 8.] VEDlNTA-KATJSTUBHA 193 Brahman. Thus, Brahman alone being the object to be worshipped even in the honey-meditation and the like, the text: 'That the gods worship as the light of lights, as life, as immortality ' (Brh. 4.4.6) is perfectly consistent. It cannot be said also that as the fruit of the honey-meditation is the attainment of Vasu-hood and the rest, and as Vasu and the rest have already attained that, they cannot be seekers, or wish for these again, — because in ordinary experience, a desire for wealth in a future life is found on the part of those who are rich in the present life. Hence, it is established that the gods are entitled to the honey-meditation and the like. 1 Here ends the section entitled 'The honey and the rest ' (8). 1 The Madhu-vidya, or tho representation of the sun as the honey extracted from all the Vedas, as taught first to Prajapati by Brahma, then to Manu by Prajapati, and then to his descendants by Manu, and to Udddlaka Aruni by his father (Vide Chand. 3.11.4) is given in Chand 3.1.3.1 1. It begins: 'Verily, the sun is the honey of the gods. Its cross-beam is the heaven. The ether is the honoy-comb. The rays are the sons (i.e. the sons of bees)' (Chand. 3.1.1), and goes on to represent tho eastern rays of the sun, its red form, as extracted from the Bg-veda; the southern rays of the sun, its white form, from the Yajur-veda; the western rays of the sun, its dark form, from tho Sama-veda; the northern rays of the sun, its exceedingly dark form, from tho Atharva veda; and the up- wards rays of the sun, its centre, from the Upanisads (Chand. 3.1-3.5). After that the different forms of the sun are designated as the objects of enjoyment for Varna, Rudras, Adityas, Maruts and Sadhyas who respectively enter into and arise from those forms (Chand. 3.6-3.10). Finally, in the concluding section the sun is represented as standing in the middle, without rising or setting, and as neither rising nor setting for one knows this Brahma-upanisad ( = secret of Brahman) (Chand. 3.11). (1) Here the opponent's view is that Vasus and the rest are enjoinod hero as the objects of worship (Chand. 3.6-3.10) and hence they thomselves cannot be the worshippers. The answer to this objection is that the Madhu-vidya has two sections. The first section (viz. Chand. 3.6-3.10) designates Brahman in His effected state, i.e. as appoaring in the forms of Vasus and the rest. The second section (viz. Chand. 3.11) designates Brahman in His causal state, i.e. as abiding in the sun as its Inner Self. And the concluding designation of the Madhu-vidya' as a 'Brahma-upanisad ', proves that the meditations on the Vasus and the rest too are really meditations on Brahman as abiding within them. Hence Brahman is really the object to be meditated throughout in the Madhu-vidya, and as such Vasus and the rest can be worshippers here, i.e. can practise the Madhu-vidya. 13 [su. 1. 3. 34. 194 vedanta-fIrijata-saurabha adh. 9.] Sarnkara Interpretation different, viz. 'Badarayana (maintains) the exis- tence (of right on the part of the gods), for (although the gods have no right to the Madhu-vidya and the rest, in which they themselves are implicated, yet there is (their right to the pure knowledge of Brahman ').* Thus, Samkara does not admit that the gods are entitled to the Madhu-vidya as Nimbarka does. The view of the latter as we have seen, is that the gods are entitled not only to the knowledge of Brahman in general, but also to those vidyas in which they themselves are implicated. Bhaskara Interpretation of 'asti hi' different, viz. ' . . . for there is (scriptural evidence that the gods are entitled to the Madhu-vidya and the rest) '. 2 Adhikarana 9: The section entitled 'The exclu- sion of the Sildras'. (Sutras 34-41) SCTRA 34 " HtS GRIEF (AROSE) ON ACCOUNT OF HEARING ITS DISRESPECT, ON ACCOUNT OF HASTENING AT THAT TIME, FOR THIS IS WHAT IS INDICATED (BY THE TERM "SUDRa")." Vedanta-pirijata-saurabha It is not to be supposed, on the ground 8 that in the Chandogya the term ' Sudra ' is applied by a preceptor to one desirous of salvation, (2) The opponent resumes : Even if Brahman and none else, be the object of meditation here, yet Vasua cannot be held to be practising the Madhu-vidya, since the fruit of Madhu-vidya is the attainment of Vasu-hood, etc. and why should those who are already Vasus, etc. strive to bo so again. The answer is that they may bo Vasus and so on in the present age, but at the same time be desirous of holding the same position in a future age also, and of finally attaining Brahman. It is this desire of attaining Vasu-hood, etc. first and then Brahman which leads them to practise the Madhu-vidya. 1 ' Yady-api madhv-ddi-vidyaeu devatddi-vya-mtirasu asambhavo' dhikS- raaya, tathdpi asti hi htddhayam Brahmavidyayarp, satnbhavah'. &.B. 1.3.33, p. 367. » Bh. B. 1.3.33, p. 66. » Here the rfoKr-suffix implies reason. [SO. 1. 3. 34. ADH. 9.] VKDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 195 that a Sudra 1 is entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Because of " his ", 2 i.e. of Janasrati's, desire for salvation, on hearing the dis- respectful words used by the swan; and because of his hastening towards, for that reason, to the preceptor at that very moment, — "it is indicated " that his grief had arisen and that was what was meant by the address 'Sudra'. Vedanta-kaustubha Now the following question is being considered: Just as it has been said that the gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, as the term 'God' is mentioned in the text: 'Then, whosoever among the gods is awakened' (Brh. 1.4.10), so whether or not a Sudra too is entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, seeing that in the Chan- dogya, the word 'sudra' is mentioned in reference to Jana&ruti who desired for salvation. If it be suggested: The word 'sudra' being mentioned in the Chandogya under the Samvarga-vidya. in the passages: '"Oh! the necklace and the carriage be yours, &udra, together with the cows" ' (Chand. 4.2.3), '"You have brought these, &udra" ! ' (Chand. 4.2.3) ; a Sudra too must be entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, it being possible for him also to be a seeker s . And, he may gain the know- ledge of the nature, etc. of Brahman through the hearing of tradition and the rest, in accordance with the statement of the ancient ones: 'He should make the four castes hear, beginning with the Brahmana' (Maha. 12.12360a*), and, the statement of Hari-Vamsa : 'One who is Sfldra by birth should attain a good end through hearing ', which lays down an injunction with regard to the hearing of Brahman by him also. The prohibition contained in the passage: 'Hence, a Sudra is not to be initiated to a sacrifice' (Tait. Sam. 7.1.1 6 ), is concerned simply with his disqualification with regard to acts like sacrifices to be performed by means of fire, but is not a cause of his 1 The fourth and the lowest caste. 2 Here the genitive ease implies an agent (kartf) in accordance with Pan. 2.3.65, SD. K. 623. * That is, just as it has been shown that gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, since they desire (arthins) for salvation, so the &udras too desire for salvation and are as such entitled to the same knowledge. * P. 81, line 4, vol. 3. * P. 241, line 21, vol. 2. [80. 1. 3. 34. 196 VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 9.] disqualification for knowledge, as knowledge is mental, and as Vidura 1 and the rest, as well as women like Sulabha 2 and so on are found to possess the knowledge of Brahman, — We reply : A Sudra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman for the following reasons : First, he lacks the requisite fitness, not having the knowledge of the nature of Brahman and the method of worshipping Him. Secondly, although the worship of Brahman may be accomplished mentally, yet the knowledge of the nature, etc. of Brahman is generated by the study of the Veda, preceded by the investiture with the holy thread. Finally, a Sudra being excluded from investiture, is not fit for knowing Brahman and as such his seeking is of no great value. As the injunctions regarding work hold good in the case of the first three classes, the prohibition holds good equally with regard to knowledge as with regard to work. Also, as in accord- ance with the statement: 'The Veda is to be confirmed by tradition and Purana' (Maha. 1.260 8 ), tradition and Purana, too, confirm the knowledge established by the Veda, a Sudra cannot attain knowledge from that too. The injunction about the 'hearing', on the other hand, simply means that such a 'hearing' has the effect of destroying a Sudra 's sins and securing prosperity for him, here or hereafter; and not that he is entitled to meditation or knowledge. The possession of knowledge by Vidura and the rest should be known to be due to the non-destruction of the knowledge which they attained in another birth, and their such low births should be known to be due to their works which had begun to bear fruits. Hence a Sudra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. On the other hand, the term 'Sudra', mentioned in Scripture, is to be explained thus: This the reverend author of the aphorisms states in the words: " grief", and so on. " For " implies the reason, and " his ", means Janasruti Pautrayanas. That is, on hearing the disrespectful words used by the swan for his want of knowledge of Brahman, thus: '"0, who is that man of whom you speak, as if he were Raikva, with the cart"?' (Chand. 4.1.3), Janasruti at once 1 Vidura was the younger brother of Dhftardspra and Pafin&u. He was the son of Vydsa and a slave-girl, who was dressed as one of the widows of Vicitra- viryya, and mistaken by Vydsa as such. Vide Maha. 1.4301, etc. 2 Sulabha was female mendicant who entered into a highly learned discourse with Janaka. Vide Maha. 12.11854 et seg. (Chap. 321). » P. 10, line 11, vol.1. [so. 1. 3. 34. ADH. 9.] VEDlKTA-KAUSTUBHA 197 hastened to Baikva, the man with the cart and a knower of Brahman. From this, it is " indicated " that his " grief " had arisen. Hence, the address ' &udra ' was applied by the sage to a non-Sudra, with a view to intimating his own omniscience, thinking: 'This Janasruti has come to loam the knowledge of Brahman from me, tempting me with the offering of riches. He does not know me, that I have performed all my duties and am omniscient'. Thus, (the whole story goes:), Janasruti Pautrayana was a royal saint, versed in religious dutios. Certain divine sages, pleased with his multitude of qualities, and intending that having hoard their conversation, and having thereupon approached Baikva, the knower of Brahman, Janasruti, too, would become a knower of Brahman, assumed tho forms of swans and began to fly in a circle over the king who was lying on the roof of his palace in summer. Then, the swan which was following said with surprise to the one which was leading: '0 Bhallaksa, Bhallaksa, do you not see tho light of the king Janasruti which has pervaded the region of the heaven ? That light will burn you, so do not cross it '. On hearing these words of the one following it, the loading swan replied : ' "0, who is that man of him you speak as if he were Raikva, with the cart " ? ' (Chand. 4.1.3), i.e. you speak of this Janasruti as if he were Baikva with the cart, meaning, the reverend Baikva who has a 'yugva' or a cart and is a knower of Brahman. By the adjective 'with a cart', Baikva's mark was indicated, in order that he might be easily found out and approached. Then, on hearing the disres- pectful words used by the swan, Janasruti too, ascertained, in the morning, the whereabout of Baikva through his man, and repaired to the sage Baikva, taking with him six hundred cows, a necklace and a chariot yoked with horses; and having approached him, said:'0 Baikva ! Take all these cows and the rest, and teach me, reverend sir '. Raikva replied: ' "0, the necklace " ' (Chand. 4.2.3) and so on, i.e. '0 Sudra, the heap of wealth, like the chariot and the rest, together with the cows be yours '. And he addressed him as ' 6udra ' more than once (viz. again in Chand. 4.2.5). A '6udra' is one who grieves (socati), and the word is formed in accordance with the rule : 'When the root " sue " is followed by the suffix " ra ", the " ca " is replaced by " da " ' (SD. K. Unadi-sutra 176 *), and the vowel 'u' is lengthened (in accordance with the unadi-sutra 175 2 ). Hence " his ", > P. 599, vol. 2. * Thus, 4uc+ra = Sild+ra = iudra. [su. 1. 3. 36. 198 VEDlNTA-PlRIJATA-SAURABHA ADH. 9.] i.e. Janasruti's grief alone " was indicated " by Baikva, with a view to pointing out Janasruti's fitness for receiving instruction, and not his connection with any caste, — this is the sense. 1 SCTRA 35 " (JlNASRUTI WAS NOT A 6uDRA) ALSO BECAUSE WE KNOW OF (HIS) KSATRIYAHOOD FROM THE INDICATION, (VIZ. THE FACT OF HIS BEING MENTIONED) LATER ON WITH CAITRARATHA." Vedanta-parljata-saurabha " Because we know of the Ksatriyahood " of Janasruti " from the indication" viz." that 'later on' he was mentioned together with Caitraratha Abhipratarin, Ksatriya, in the passage: 'Now, when Saunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kaksaseni were being served food, a religious student begged of them ' (Chand. 4.3.6 2 ), Janasruti was not a Sudra. Vedanta-kaustubha Prom this reason also, the author, points out, the Ksatriyahood of Janasruti is known. His grief alone has arisen; hence he was called a 'Sudra' by the sage ; this being so, the Sudrahood of Janasruti was not due to this caste. Why? "Because we know of (his) Ksatriyahood"; i.e. also because we know of his Ksatriyahood from the fact that in the intro- ductory passage, viz. 'A plentiful giver, one preparing many food' (Chand. 4.1.1), he is known to be a lord of gifts and a giver of much well-cooked food, from the fact of his sending the door-keeper, known from the passage: 'He said to the door-keeper' (Chand. 4.1.5) and from the fact of his giving golden ornaments, chariot and daughter to Baikva. Having, thus, stated the marks contained in the introduc- tory text and proving the Ksatriyahood of Janasruti, the author goes on to show the mark, contained in the concluding text of the samvarga- vidya, according to the maxim of the 'crow's eye', 8 — the term " and " » Vide Chand. 4.1-4.2. » 6. R, Bh, Sk, B. 8 The maxim of the 'crow's eye' means as follows: Crows are supposed to have only one eye, which as occasion requires, moves from the cavity on one side into that of another. The maxim is used of a word which appears only once [SO. 1. 3. 36. ADH. 9.] VBDiNTA-KAUSTUBHA 199 (in the sutra) referring to both — , in the words : " And from the indica- tion, (viz. the fact of his being mentioned) later on with Caitraratha " ; i.e. " from the indication ", viz. that Janairuti was mentioned together with Caitraratha who is ascertained to bo a Ksatriya from the fact of his association with a well-known priest of Ksatriyas. Thus, in the concluding text, viz.: 'Now, when Saunaka Kapeya and Abhi- pratarin Kaksaseni were being served food by a cook, 1 a religious student begged of them' (Chand. 4.3.5), Caitraratha, named Abhi- pratarin is mentioned. This is the sense: On the enquiry: 'who were the two that were being served' 'by the cook', i.e. by one who superin- tends over the oven ? — the text says : 6unaka's descendant, the priest of the Kapi clan, and Kaksasena's descendant, named Abhipratarin, the king. When these two sat down to eat, they were asked for alms. If it be asked: Whence do you know that Abhipratarin was a Caitraratha? (a descendant of Citraratha), — we reply: He was so, because of his connection with Kapeya, (i.e. descendant of Kapi), the priest of Citraratha. From the text: ' The Kapeyas made Citra- ratha perform sacrifice by this ' (Tand. Br. 20.12.5 2 ), it is well-known that the Kapeyas were the priests of Citraratha. The term ' by this ' means 'by the Dvi-ratra '. If it be objected: Very well, let Abhipratarin be Caitraratha becauso of his connection with a priest of Citra; but what proof is thero of his Ksatriyahood ? — (we reply): The text: 'From him was born a king of Ksatriyas, named Caitraratha ', is the proof. The words 'from him' mean 'from Citraratha'. A Ksatriya being referred to in the end, JSnasruti, mentioned in the beginning, too, must be a Ksatriya, since in one and the same vidya there is the mention, as a rule, of persons of the same class, — this is the meaning of the aphorism. Moreover, the Ksatriyahood of Abhipratarin being ascertained in the end on the ground of his in a sentence, but which applies to two portions of it, or to two persons or things, fulfilling a doublo purpose. The maxim may be said to approximate to tho English one of ' killing two birds with one stone'. Vide L.N., Part I, pp. 12-13. Likewise, here the phrase : ' Ksatriyalvdvagateh ' fulfils a doublo purpose, meaning both 'on account of knowing the Ksatriyahood of Caitraratha Abhipratarin', and 'on account of knowing the Ksatriyahood of J&nairati'. See p. 200, h. 1. 1 The word ' liidena ' not found in the original text. Vide Chand. 4.3.5, p. 189. » P. 561, vol. 2. [su. 1. 3. 36. 200 VEDANTA-PARUlTA-SAURABHA ADH. 9.] association with Kapeya, a Brahmana, the Ksatriyahood of J&nasruti, too, is ascertained in the beginning on the ground of his association with Raikva, — this is the sense. 1 COMPARISON Ramanuja and Srikantha Reading different, viz. They break it into two different sutras : ' Ksatriyatva gate! ca' (sutra 34), and ' uttaratra-lingat ' (sutra 35 2 ). Bhaskara Reading different, viz. 'Ksatriyatva-gateiS ca instead of 'Ksatriyatva-avagate4 ca ....'. SCTRA 36 " Ok account of the reference to PURIFICATORY RITES, AN J) ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECLARATION OF THEIR ABSENCE (IN THE CASE OF A StJDRA), (a $UDRA IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE KNOWLEDGE of Brahman)." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha " On account of the reference to the purificatory rites " of investi- ture with the holy thread in the section concerned with knowledge, 1 Thus, altogether three reasons are advanced — why JanainUi is to be taken as a Ksatriya : — (a) In the beginning, Jdnadruti is said to be practising charity, feeding people on a large scale, which proves him to be a Ksatriya. (6) In the end, Abhipratdrin is mentioned, and Abhipratdrin being a Ksatriya, JanainUi must be so, since persons of the class are entitled to the same Vidya. (c) Abhipratarin, mentioned in the end, is said to be a Ksatriya, because of his connection with a Brahmana (viz. Kapeya), and hence Jdnairuti, mentioned in the beginning must be so, because of his connection with a Brdhmana (viz. Raikva). 2 Srt. B. 1.3.34-36, pp. 337-338, Part 1, Madras ed. Some editions read ' Ksatriyatva-avagateica '. Vide Bombay ed., p. 326. The Benares of V.D., reads ' Ksatriyalva-gatei ca' (p. 60); but the Brin- davan ed. of V.S., reads ' Ksatriyatva-avagatei ca' (p. 46). Sk. 1.3.34-36, pp. 438, 480, Part 6. * Bh. B. 1.3.34, p. 67. [SO. 1. 3. 36. ADH. 9.] VEDiNTA-KAUSTUBHA 201 thus: 'He invested him, forsooth, with the holy thread' (Sat. Br. 11.5.3.13 *) and so on; "and on account of the declaration of their absence" thus: 'A &iidra, belongs to the fourth caste and is once- born (G.D.S. 10.60 2 ), '■ And he is not fit for a purificatory rite * (Manu 10.126 8 ), — a Sudra is not entitled to knowledge. Vedanta-kaustubha In the previous aphorism, the disqualification of a 6udra for the knowledge of Brahman has been established on the ground of reason. Now, his disqualification is being proved on the ground of Scripture, etc. as well. A Sudra is not entitled to knowlodge. Why ? " On account of the reference to purificatory rites," i.e. on account of the reference to the purificatory rites of investiture with the holy thread in sections •concerned with knowledge, thus 'He invested him, forsooth, with the holy thread' (Sat. Br. 11.5.3.13). But, then, is it to be supposed that a Sudra, too, is entitled to investiture ? To this it is replied : " On account of the declaration of their absence ", i.e. on account of the depiction of the absence, in the case of a Sudra, of purificatory rites like investiture with the holy thread and the rest, in the passages : 'In a Sudra there is no sin and he is not fit for a purificatory rite' (Manu. 10.126). 'A &udra belongs to the fourth caste and is once- born' (G.D.S. 10.50) and so on. The investiture with the holy thread is designated in the case of others in the passage: 'Let one invest a Brahmana with the holy thread at the age of eight, a Ksatriya at eleven, and a Vaisya at twelve' (As. G.S. 17.1.3-4 4 ). Hence, the reference to investiture with the holy thread fits in in the sections concerned with knowledge. i P. 861, lino 18. * P. 14, line 8. 8, B, Bh, SK, B. S, R, Bh, Sk. » P. 419. * P. 72. 6, B, Bh, Sk. [SO. 1. 3. 37. 202 VEDANTA-PABIJATA-SATJBABHA ADH. 9.] SCTRA 37 "And because of (Gautama's) pboceeding (to initiate JabAla) on the ascebtainment of the absence of that (viz. his sudbahood), (a sodba is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman)." VedSnta-parijata-saurabha Moreover, "because of" Gautama's "proceeding" to invest Jabala with the holy thread and to teach him, only "on the ascer- tainment of the absence " of his Sudrahood, — here, too, a Sudra is not indeed entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Vedanta-kaustubha For this reason too, says the author, a Sudra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Fatherless Jabala, desirous of salvation, and about to approach a preceptor, asked his mother with a view to learning his lineage. 'Of what lineage am I?' She too, unaware of his lineage, replied: ' I do not know '. Jabala too, having approached Gautama, said : ' Reverend Sir ! I wish to stay in your place as a student of sacred know- ledge '. Then, being asked by him: 'Of what lineage are you?' Jabala said: 'Sir, I do not know of what lineage I am,' and so on. Thus, when Jabala had spoken the truth, and when, thereby, the absence of Jabala'a Sudrahood had been ascertained thus: '"A non- Brahmana cannot speak thus" ' (Chand. 4.4.5 x ), then only Gautama proceeded to invest Jabala with the holy thread and teach him with the words: '"Fetch tho fuel, my child. I shall invest you with the holy thread. You have not deviated from truth " ' (Chand. 4.4.5 *). Hence, a Sudra is not entitled to knowledge. * Correct quotation:' .... vivaktum arhati'. Vide Ch&nd. 4.4.0, p. 186. * Vide Ch&nd. 4.4 for the whole story. [80. 1. 3. 38. ADH. 9.] VEDANTA-FARIJiTA-SAURABHA 203 SCTRA 38 "On account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and (learning) the meaning (of the Veda), (a Sudra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman)." Vedanta -pari j ata -saurabha A &udra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, " on account of the prohibition of the hearing " and so on of the Veda on his part, in the text: 'One should not study (the Veda) in the vicinity of a Sudra' (V.Sm. 18.9 *) and so on. Vedanta -kaustubha For this reason, too, a Sudra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. For what reason ? " On account of the prohibition of hearing" and the rest on the part of a Sudra, in the passage 'A cemetery, endowed with feet, is, verily, a Sudra. 2 Hence one should not study (the Veda) in the vicinity of a Sfidra' (V.Sm. 18.9), 'Hence a Sudra is a beast, 3 not fit for sacrifices' and on so. The sense (of the first passage) is: A 'cemetery' that is 'endowed with feet', i.e. capable of moving, 'is a Sudra', in whose presence one should not even study the Vedas. The sense is that the hearing of the Veda, the study of it, the performance of the religious duties mentioned therein, are prohibited, all the more, to a Sudra. COMPARISON Sarpkara, Bhaskara and Baladeva They treat this sutra and the next as one siitra. 4 i P. 216, line 20. 6, R, Bh, &K, B. 8 Heading Hlightly differs, viz.' Kka vai tac-chmculdnam . . . ' (p. 216). » 'Bahu-paiuh pain sadria Hi arthah.' Sri. B. 1.3.38, p. 339, Part I. * 6.B. 1.3.38, p. 376; Bh. B. 1.3.38, p. 68; GJ3. 1.3.38. [SO. 1. 3. 39-40. 204 vedanta-pIrijXta-saurabha adh. 6 resumed.] SOTRA 39 "And on account op Smbti." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha " And on account of the Smrti ", viz. ' One should not teach him sacred duties ' (Manu 4.8061 ; V.Sm. 18.128). Vedanta-kaustubha "And on account of the Smrti ", viz. 'One should not teach him sacred duties, nor sacred vows' (Manu 4.806; V.Sm. 18.12), 'One should not impart knowledge to a Sfidra' (Manu 4.80a ; V.Sm. 18.12) and so on. Here ends the section entitled 'The exclusion of Sudras' (9). Adhikarana 6 resumed: The section entitled 'What is meas u re d' res u me d. (Sutras 40-41) SCTRA 40 "On account of the shaking." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha What is measured, is to be known as the Supreme Person, He being the shaker of the entire universe, and because the words 'great ' and the rest are found used. Vedanta -kaustubha After having completed the incidental discussion about qualifica- tion (adhikara) in connection with the discussion about the Person, measured as the size of merely a thumb, begun in the aphorism 'On account of the text only, what is measured (is the Lord)' (Br. Su. 1.3.24), the author is finishing the original discussion. » P. 146. * P. 217, line 1. R. [SO. 1. 3. 41. adh. 6 resumed.] vedXnta-pIbijIta-saubabha 205 The words 'what is measured' are to be supplied. In the Katha- valll, we find the following in the section of the Person, of the size of merely a thumb: 'Whatever there is, the whole world, emanated (from the vital-breath),. trembles in the vital-breath alone, the great fear, a thunderbolt about to be hurled. Those who know that become immortal' (Katha 6.2). Here, what is measured as of the size of a thumb and is denoted by the term 'vital-breath' is none but the Supreme Being. Why ? For the following reasons : First, " on account of the shaking ", i.e. the Lord alone is the cause of the shaking of the entire universe, emanated from Himself. Secondly, the term 'great', which is a synonym for Brahman, has been used. Thirdly, the term ' fear ' proves that the vital-breath is Brahman, for He alone is the cause of the fear of all, as declared by the text: 'Through fear of him the fire burns, through fear the sun shines, through fear Indra, Wind and Death, the fifth, speed on' (Katha 6.3); and finally, the Lord alone is the cause of the immortality of one who possesses know- ledge of Him. COMPARISON Samkara, Bhaskara and Srikantha Interpretation different, viz. they take this sutra as forming a new adhikarana by itself, concerned with the question whether the term 'prana' in Katha-upanisad (6.2) denotes Brahman or not. But according to Nimbarka, this sutra does not begin a new adhikarana, but only resumes adhikarana 6. Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. he also begins a new adhikarana here, concerned with the question whether the term 'vajra* in Katha- upanisad (6.2) denotes Brahman or not. SOTRA 41 "Because op pebceiving light." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha Because in the text: 'Through his light* (Katha 5.15 *), 'light' is mentioned, the measured Person is the Supreme Being. » R, B. [SO. 1. 3. 42. 206 vedanta-parijata-saurabha adh. 10.] Vedanta-kaustubha In the very same Katha- valli, in the section of the Person measured as of the size of a thumb, it is declared, prior to the text about the vital-breath, (viz. Katha 6.2): 'The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor do these lightnings shine, much less this fire. He shining, everything else shines after him. All this shines through his light' (Katha 6.2). " Because " in this text, light, belonging exclusively to the Supreme Soul who is denoted by the term 'light', " is seen " (i.e. declared), it is established that what is of the size of merely a thumb is none but the Supreme Soul. Here ends the section entitled ' What is measured ' (6). COMPARISON Samkara, Bhaskara and Srikanfha Interpretation different, viz. they take this sutra as forming a new adhikarana by itself, concerned with the question whether the term 'light' in the Chandogyopanisad (8.12.6) denotes Brahman or not. 1 Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. '(The word "vajra" in the Katho- panisad must mean the Lord), because it is seen (that in a preceding passage He is called) light '. 2 Adhikarana 10: The section entitled 'Some- thing different'. (Sutras 42-44) SCTRA 42 " The ether (is Brahman), on account of the designation (of it) as something different, and so on." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha In the passage: 'The ether, verily, is the producer of name and form' (Chand. 8.14.1 8 ), the object denoted by the term 'ether' is the i S.B. 1.3.40, pp. SSOetseq.; Bh. B. 1.3.40, p. 69; SK. B. 1.3.41, pp. 498 et seg. Part 6. * G.B. 1.3.40. » 6, R, Bh, &c, B. [stT. 1. 3. 42. ADH. 10.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 207 Highest Person. Why ? " On account of the designation " of the Supreme Soul "as something different " from even the freed souls, — He being the producer of all objects possessing names and forms implied by the term 'name and form', — as well as on account of the designation of Brahmanhood, immortality and tho rest on its part. Vedanta -kaustubha Thus, by means of the aphorism: 'On account of the text only, what is measured (is the Lord)' (Br. Su. 1.3.24), the text regarding the Person of the size of merely a thumb has been shown to be referring to Brahman, and this has been confirmed once more immediately after the end of the incidental sections. Now, with a view to desig- nating the non-attachment and the omnipresence of the Supreme Self, it is being shown that the text about the ether, too, refers to Him. In the Chandogya, we read: 'The other, verily, is the producer of name and form. That within which they are is Brahman, that is immortal, that is the soul' (Chand. 8.14.1). Here a doubt arises, viz. whether by the term 'ether' the elemental ether is to be under- stood here, or the soul freed from the bondage of mundane existence, or the Supreme Soul. If it be said that the elemental ether is to be understood, since the term 'ether' is well-known to denote that alone, — (we reply.) no, on account of the term 'soul'. What then should be understood? If it be suggested: the freed soul, Why? For the following reasons : .First, the freed soul alone has been men- tioned previously as the topic of discussion, in the passage: 'Shaking off (evils) as a horse shakes off his hairs' (Chand. 8.13.1), — the phrase: 'That within which they are' means: That soul, freed from mundane existence, from which 'they', i.e. namo and form 'are different' (antara), i.e. outside. Further, the discarding of the well-known name and form is possible on the part of the soul in its state of release, as declared by the passage: 'Just as the flowing rivers, discarding name and form' (Mund. 3.2.8). And, finally, the term 'ether', too, is appropriate with regard to the freed soul, it being possessed of fully manifest knowledge. The phrase : ' That is Brahman, that is immortal ' denotes the state of salvation. ■ (Author's conclusion.) We reply: The meaning of the term 'ether' here can fittingly be the Supreme Soul alone. Why ? " On account of the designation [sff. 1. 3. 43. 2J08 vedanta-paruata-saurabha adh. 10.] {of it) as something different ", i.e. on account of the designation of the object denoted by the term 'ether', — which is untouched by name and form, as evident from the phrase: 'That within which they are '; and is the producer of name and form, as evident from the phrase : "The producer of name and form', — as different from the object which is devoid of the power of being a producer, since during its state of bondage, the soul, partaking of name and form as subject to karmas, is not itself capable of producing, i.e. revealing, name and form; — to do so being all the more impossible on its part during its state of release. That the activities in connection with (the creation and tho rest) of the Universe, are impossible on its part, will be expressly stated later on. 1 On the other hand, that the Supreme Soul, an adept in the creation of the entire Universe, is such a producer^ is well-estab- lished by Scripture itself, thus : ' " Having entered with this living soul, let me evolve name and form"' (Chand. 6.3.2), 'From him arose — * this name, form and food' (Mund. 1.1.9) 'The Wise One, who abides conceiving all forms, giving names, and declaring (them) ' (Tait. Ar. 3.12.7 8 ). The 'ether' is Brahman also on account of the designation, in the text, of the exclusive qualities of the Lord, such as, being eternally manifest, greatness, immortality and the rest, implied by the term " and so on " (in the sutra). Nor has the freed soul been mentioned before as the topic of discussion, the Supreme Soul alone being the topic, as evident from the passage: 'I attain the world of Brahman' (Chand. 8.13.1), and the term 'ether', too, being well-known to denote the Supreme Soul alone, it being all- pervasive and non-attached. SOTRA 43 " (And on account op the designation of Brahman) as different (from the individual soul) in deep sleep and departure." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha And on account of the designation of the omniscient " as different " from the non-knower " in deep sleep and departing ". \ i Vide Br. Sfl. 4.4.17. * Correct quotation: ' TaamM etat Brahma . . . '. Vide Mund. 1.1.9, j>. 10. » P. 199. (SO. 1. 3. 43. ADH. 10.] VEDlNTA-KAUSTUBHA 209 Vedanta-kaustubha If it be objected: Since it is found from a consideration of the meaning of the text 'Thou art that* (Chand. 6.8.7, etc. 1 ) that there cannot possibly be anything different from Brahman, how can it be said: "On account of the designation (of Brahman) as something different and so on"? (Br. Su. 1.3.42)— (We reply) : True. In spite of there being non-difference between the individual soul, which is a part of Brahman, and Brahman, owing to the fact that the individual soul has no existence, activity and the rest apart from Brahman, — its difference from Him, too, is inevitable, possessing as it does its own peculiar qualities, — so says the reverend author of the aphorisms. The words "on account of the designation" are to be supplied. (The individual soul and Brahman are different from eaoh other,) on account of the designation of the Supreme Soul, the omniscient, as "different" from the individual soul, the non-knower, "in deep sleep", in the passage: 'Embraced by the Intelligent Soul, he does not know anything external, nor anything internal' (Brh. 4.3.21), and "in departure", in the passage: 'Mounted by the Intelligent Soul, it goes groaning' (Brh. 4.3.35). 'Mounted' means superin- tended, 'groaning' means making frightful sounds, or sounds of hiccough. It is not possible that the non-knowing soul, sleeping or departing, can at the same time, becoming intelligent, embrace or mount itself, 'or that another individual soul can do so, omniscience being impossible on the latter's part as well. COMPARISON Sarnkara and BhSskara Interpretation different, viz. according to them, this adhikarana is concerned with the question whether the Brhadaranyaka text 4.3.7 refers to the Supreme Soul, or not. 2 i Also ooeurs in Chfind. 6.9.4, 6.10.3, 6.11.3, 6.12.3, 6.13.3, 6.14.3, 6.15.3, 6.16.3. « 6.B. 1.3.42, pp. 382; Bh. B. 1.3.42, p. 70. 14 [SO. 1. 3. 44. 210 VEDlNTA-rABUATA-SAUBABHA ADH. 10.] SCTRA 44 " On account or words ukb 'lobd' and thb ebst." Vedanta-parijata-saurabha On account of the designation of the Supreme Soul as different from the individual soul by the texts: 'The Lord of all' (Brh. 4.4.22, 5.6.11),