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

[sū. 1 2. 11.
ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 107
Vedānta-kaustubha
As the Highest Self is mentioned as the topic of discussion in the
texts: 'Knowing the great, all-pervasive self' (Kaṭha 2.22), 'By
him is (He) attainable, whom alone he chooses' (Kaṭha 2 23; Muṇḍ.
3.2.23), and as a peculiar mark of the Lord, viz. unintelligibleness, is
mentioned in the passage 'Who thus knows where He is?' (Kaṭha
2.25), it is established that the eater is the Highest Self alone.
Here ends the section entitled 'The eater' (2).
Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled 'The cave'.
(Sūtras 11-12)
SŪTRA 11
"THE SOULS ENTERED INTO THE CAVE (ARE THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL
AND THE SUPREME SOUL), BECAUSE THAT IS SEEN."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text: 'There are two, drinking of righteousness in the
world of good deeds, entered into the cave' (Kaṭha 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? 2 "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' (Kaṭha 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' (Kaṭha 4.7 3).
Vedānta-kaustubha
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' (Kaṭha 2.25). Now, by
1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B 2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. 3 R, B

[SŪ. 1. 2. 11.
108 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 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 soul¹),—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' (Kaṭha 3. 1) and so on refers to the Lord.
Immediately after the above-quoted text, we find the following
in the Kaṭha-vallī: '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 Nāciketas fire'³ (Kaṭha 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' (Kaṭha 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 enjoyer of the fruits of works, as stated in the
passage: 'Drinking of righteousness' (Kaṭha 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"' (Kaṭha 1. 20⁴). 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. Anvāhārya-pacana or Dakṣiṇa, Gārhapatya, Āhavanīya, Sabhya, and
Āvasathya. M.W., p. 577, Col. 3.
³ Vide M.W., p. 458, Col. 2.
⁴ The sense is: Naciketā 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 such the passage in question must deal with these two alone.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 11.
ADH. 3] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 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 Upaniṣad, the
text: 'The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, abides within the
soul, the Lord of the past and the future' (Kaṭha 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' (Kaṭha 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' (Kaṭha 4.7), the individual
soul is designated as entering into the cave. Moreover, in the text:
'Drinking of righteousness' (Kaṭha 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 Mahā-bhāṣya.
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' (Kaṭha 3.1), since the statement: 'Drinking of
righteousness' (Kaṭha 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).

[SŪ. 1. 2. 12.
110 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.]
and is as such the causative agent; ¹ 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.
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation of the phrase 'tad-darśanāt' different, viz.:
'Because it is seen (that numerals denote beings of the same nature)'. ²
SŪTRA 12
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIFICATION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-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,³ the deity to be
worshipped, by revering (him), he goes to everlasting peace' (Kaṭha
1.17 ⁴), 'The bridge for sacrificers' (Kaṭha 3.2 ⁵) and so on.
Vedānta-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 Kaṭha-
upaniṣad), 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.
² Ś.B. 1.2.12, p. 272, Bh.B. 1.2.12, p. 41.
³ Correct quotation: 'Brahmaja-jña'. Vide C.S.S. ed., p. 8. 'Brahmaja-
jña' may be interpreted also as 'Brahmajaś cāsau jñaśceti'.
⁴ R. ⁵ Op. cit.

[SŪ. 1. 2 13.
ADH. 4 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 111
and the object thought, in the passages: 'Know the soul to be the
charioteer, and the body the chariot' (Kaṭha 3.3), 'He reaches the
end of the road, that supreme place of Viṣṇu' (Kaṭha 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' (Kaṭha 2.12) and so on Hence, it
is established that the individual soul and the Supreme Soul alone are
to be understood here 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'. (Sūtras 13-18)
SŪTRA 13
"THAT WHICH IS WITHIN (THE EYE IS BRAHMAN), ON ACCOUNT
OF FITTING IN."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the passage: 'That person who is seen within the eye'
(Chānd. 4.15.1 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"' (Chānd 4.15.1²),
'They call it the "uniter of lovely things"' (Chānd. 4.15.2),—"fit in"
in the case of the Highest Person alone.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, by showing that the text: 'That Person who is seen within
the eye' (Chānd. 4.15.1) and so on refers to Brahman, the author
romoves the doubt, viz.:—In the previous passage (viz. Kaṭha 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
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Ś, R, Bh.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 13.
112 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.]
is used, who (viz. the individual soul or the Supreme Soul) is to be
understood ?
We read under the Upakośala-vidyā ¹ in the Chāndogya:—" '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' " (Chānd.
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' (Bṛh. 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.

[sū. 1. 2. 14.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 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’
(Chānd 4 15.2), ‘He is also “the leader to all blessing” ² because he
leads to all blessings’ (Chānd. 4.15.3), ‘He also is “the leader to
light ”³, because he shines in all the worlds’ (Chānd. 4.15.4), “fit in” in
the case of the Supreme Soul alone. ‘Saṃyadvāma’ implies one from
whom the ‘vāmas’, 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 ‘vāmanī’, the
‘vāmanī’ implies one who ‘leads’, i.e causes people, to attain the
‘vāmas’ or auspicious objects. This very thing is stated in the passage.
‘Because he leads to all blessings’. In the text ‘He also is the
bhāmanī’, the ‘bhāmanī’ implies one who leads to the ‘bhāmas’, 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.
SŪTRA 14
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF PLACE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“And on account of the designation of the place” of the Supreme
Soul, in the text: ‘He who abiding within the sun’ (Bṛh. 3.7.18 ⁴),
the Person within the sun is none but He.
Vedānta-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 Saṃyadvāma. ² Vāmanī.
³ Bhāmanī. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
8

114 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 2. 15
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’ (Chānd. 1 6 6), ‘He sees the Person,
lying in the city, who is higher than the highest aggregate of souls’
(Praśna 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
(Chānd. 4 15.1) By the term “and” His power of manifesting Himself
in forms, as desired, in the eye, in the heart and the like, is indicated.
SŪTRA 15
“ON ACCOUNT ALSO OF THE MENTION ONLY OF WHAT IS CHARAC-
TERIZED BY PLEASURE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-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’ (Chānd.
4.10.4 ³).
Vedānta-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
¹ 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.
² I.e. that Person within the sun has a form is evident from the word ‘seen’,
for a bodiless being cannot be seen.
³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 16.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 115
introductory text · 'The vital-breath, is Brahman, pleasure is Brahman,
the ether is Brahman' (Chānd. 4 10.4), pleasure that is Brahman,
i.e Brahman characterized by pleasure, is mentioned, and that alone
is referred to here
SŪTRA 16
“ALSO FOR THAT VERY REASON, THAT IS BRAHMAN.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-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 ¹, viz. ‘What, verily, is pleasure, that is the
ether ; what is the ether, that is pleasure’ (Chānd 4.10.5 ²)
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz The word ‘pleasure’ conventionally denotes
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’
(Chānd 4 10.5), for worldly pleasure cannot consistently refer to an
all-pervading substance—denoted by the term ‘ether’—as non-different
from itself.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara, etc.
This Sūtra is omitted by Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva.
Rāmānuja
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’.³
¹ I e ka (pleasure) qualifies kha (ether) and vice versa.
² R, ŚK.
³ Śrī B 1 2.6, pp 252-253, Part 1.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 17.
116 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.]
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading different, viz. ‘Ata-eva sa Brahma’. Interpretation too
different, viz. exactly like Rāmānuja’s ¹
SŪTRA 17
“ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF THE PATH OF ONE WHO
HAS HEARD THE UPANIṢAD.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“The path”, called ‘the path of gods’, “of one who has heard the
Upaniṣad” 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’ (Praśna 1.10 ²). “On account also
of the mention” of that very “path” here in the text ‘They pass
over to light’ (Chānd. 4.15.5 ³), the Person within the eye is none but
the Highest Person.⁴
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason, too, the person within the eye is the Supreme
Soul,—so says the reverend author of the aphorisms
That through which bondage is broken is Upaniṣad, the know-
ledge of the Supreme Soul; or that which leads one to attain the
Supreme Soul is Upaniṣad, the knowledge of the Supreme Soul. The
treatise relating to that is also Upaniṣad. “Śrutopaniṣatka” is one
by whom the Upaniṣad 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 Smṛtis, belongs to him, i.e.
is his way to attaining Brahman who is established in the Upaniṣads,—
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
¹ ŚK. B. 1.2.16, p. 360, Part 4.
² Ś, R, Bh. ³ Ś, R, Bh, B.
⁴ 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.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 17.
ADH. 4 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 117
of the mention of the path of one who has heard the Upaniṣad", 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’ (Praśna 1.10), as well as
in the Smṛti 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’ (Gītā 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 person, 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’ (Chānd
4.15.5-6). Hence, the person within the sun is none but the Supreme
Soul.
The meaning of the text (viz Praśna 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 Vāna-
prastha ³ and a Saṃnyāsin,⁴ both being primarily given to austerity;
1 See below, p. 119. Vide also V.K. 4.3.5.
2 Vide Gītā 17.14–16, where three kinds of austerity (tapas) are spoken of,
viz Sārīra, Vāṅ-maya and Mānasa. These, again, may be of three kinds, viz.
sāttvika, rājasa and tāmasa. Vide 17.16–22.
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 ascetic
life in the forest.
4 A Brahmin in the fourth stage of life, a religious mendicant, who has given
up all earthly concerns.

118 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 2. 17.
ADH 4.]
'through faith', i.e. through vidyā, 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 Vedānta, and men-
tioned in the text 'The self should be meditated on' (Bṛh. 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 Vedānta. 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 Parāśara in a passage,
which begins 'The Prājāpatya is for the Brāhmaṇas' and ends
'The Brāhma is declared in Smṛti to be for the Saṁnyāsins' 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 Vāna-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 Naiṣṭhikas ¹ 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' ³ under the section called 'Vārsṇeya-adhyātma',
thus: 'This unbroken chastity which is the form of Brahman is
higher than all religious practices. By it, (people) reach the highest
goal' (Mahā 12.7770 ⁴). Under the section treating of instruction,
¹ A Naiṣṭhika is a perpetual religious student, who observes the vow of
chastity. M.W., p 570, Col. 1.
² I.e. 'Brahma-cārya' (=chastity) in the ordinary sense of the term means
temporary chastity, which a student has to observe so long as he has not entered
the stage of a house-holder But here the term means permanent chastity which
a Naiṣṭhika, e.g. practises.
³ Mokṣa-dharma
⁴ P. 640, line 40, vol 3, Asiatic Society ed.

[sū. 1. 2. 17.
ADH 4] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 119
it is said: 'Listen, O Father Yudhiṣṭhira, 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, O King, that is unattainable by
him Many millions of Vṛṣis 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, O 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”' (Gītā 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. Sū. 4.1.1), may also be
resorted to by a Naisthika.
The text 'This verily' (last portion of Praśna 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---Chānd. 4.15.5-6---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. Varuṇa) and Indra, then the world of Prajāpati
After that, breaking through the sphere of prakṛti, they attain the
Virajā, the best of rivers and forming the boundary of the supreme
place After having crossed that river and having entered the world
of Viṣṇu,—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

¹ Vide V.K. 1.1.1. ² Vide V.K. 4.3.5.

[SŪ. 1. 2 18.
120 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-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 ‘whulpool’), —as declared
by the Lord Himself in the passage: ‘“The worlds, beginning from the
world of Brahma, come and go, O Arjuna. But, on attaining me, O
son of Kuntī, there is no rebirth”’ (Gītā 8 16). The difference of
the world of Brahman from the sphere of matter is stated in the
Mokṣa-dharma under the dialogue between Jaigiṣa and Vyāsita 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 prakṛti, and eternal”?’, and ends ‘“He attains
the place of Brahman which is higher than prakṛti, and eternal”’
(Mahā. 12.9968-9969 ¹).
SŪTRA 18
“ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ABIDING, AS WELL AS ON ACCOUNT OF
IMPOSSIBILITY, NOT THE OTHER.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-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.
Vedānta-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
¹ P 716, lines 22-23, vol. 3. For full quotation see under V.K. 1 3.13.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 19.
ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 121
presiding deity is declared to abide in the eye through the rays, (and
hence does not himself abide within the eyes ¹); and finally, because
immortality, fearlessness, ‘being the uniter of lovely things’ and the rest
are not possible on the part of any one other than Him. Hence, 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
Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different, viz he takes this sūtra as forming an
adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the Person,
of the size of a thumb merely, (Mahānār. 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 devourer of the entire world”, and so on, on the part
of any one else)’.²
Adhikaraṇa 5. The section entitled ‘The inner
controller’. (Sūtras 19–21)
SŪTRA 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 OF HIS QUALITIES.” ³
Vedānta-pārijāta-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

¹ Vide Śrī. B. 1.1.18, p. 354, Part 1.
² ŚK B. 1.1.18, pp. 364–66, Part 4.
³ Cf. the different readings:—K.S.S. ed. and Brindaban ed. read ‘adhi-
devādi’. C S.S ed. reads ‘adhidaivādhi’

[SŪ. 1. 2. 19
122 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
continues 'He is your soul, the inner controller' (Bṛh 3.7 3¹),—
is the Highest Self alone Why ? “On account of the designation
of His qualities” here, viz. 'being the controller of all' and so on.
Vedānta-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 Bṛhadāraṇyaka, 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' (Bṛh. 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 is the body, who controls the earth
within—He is your soul, the inner controller, immortal ²' (Bṛh. 3.7.3),
and so on, and who is taught, after that,—in the text which begins
'He who abiding in all the worlds' (Śat. Br. 14.6.7.17 ³) and ends
'He who abiding within the soul' (Śat. Br. 14.6.7.30 ⁴),—by a section,
which enjoins him with in reference to the worlds, the Vedas, the
sacrifices and the soul ⁵,—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.
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
² This is repeated at the end of each verse from Bṛh 3 7.3–3.7.23.
³ P 1074, line 5 ⁴ Op. cit., line 18.
⁵ The Kāṇva branch designates a being abiding within the earth and the rest
(vide Bṛh. 3.7 3–23). The Mādhyandina branch, after designating a being abiding
within the earth and so on (vide Śat. 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' (Bṛh. 3.7 22) a text 'He who dwells in the soul' (Vide Śat Br
14.6 7.17–30). Note that Nimbārka makes no reference to this Mādhyandina
addition in his commentary, although it is clearly indicated in the sūtra by the
word 'lokādiṣu'.

[sū. 1. 2. 19.
ADH 5 ] VEDĀNTA-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’ (Bṛh. 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’ (Bṛh. 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
Śaṃkara
This is sūtra 18 in Śaṃkara-bhāṣya. Reading different, viz.
‘Antaryāmyadhidaivādiṣu . . . . ’ ¹, i.e. omits ‘lokādiṣu’.
Rāmānuja
Reading like the Chowkhamba edition.² Interpretation different,
viz. exactly like Śrīnivāsa’s. Nimbārka reads ‘lokādiṣu’ in the
sūtra, like Rāmānuja, but gives no meaning of the word ‘lokādiṣu’.
Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 18 in his commentary. Reading like the Chow-
khamba edition.³
Baladeva
This is sūtra 18 in his commentary. Reading different, viz.
like Śaṃkara’s.⁴
1 Ś B. 1.2.18, p. 282.
2 Śrī B. 1 2.19, p 257, vol 1.
3 Bh. B. 1.2 18, p. 43. ŚK B. 1.2.19, p. 368, Part 4
4 G B. 1 2 18 (p. 128, Chap. 1).

[sū. 1. 2. 20.
124 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
SŪTRA 20
"AND (THE INNER CONTROLLER IS) NOT THAT WHICH IS DESIGNATED
IN THE SMṚTI, ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF QUALITIES NOT
BELONGING TO IT"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And, pradhāna 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.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Although pradhāna has already been set aside under the apho-
rism 'Because (he) sees, not, it is non-scriptural' (Br. Sū. 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 Smṛti", i.e. pradhāna established
by the Sāṁkhya Smṛti, 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' (Bṛh. 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, pradhāna
cannot be accepted here
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading different, viz add 'śārīraśca', and extends the same
argument to the case of the individual soul as well.²
¹ That is, pradhāna is invisible, and the inner controller too is said to be
invisible, etc. (Bṛh. 3.7.23). Hence it might be thought that pradhāna is the
inner controller. This is being refuted here.
² Śrī B. 1.2.20, p 259, Part 1 ŚK. B 1.2.20, p. 372, Part 4.

[sū. 1. 2. 21.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 125
SŪTRA 21
“AND THE EMBODIED ONE (IS NOT THE INNER CONTROLLER),
BECAUSE BOTH ALSO DEPICT IT AS DIFFERENT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“And” the individual soul is not the inner controller, because
“both” the Kaṇvas, ‘as well as’ the Mādhyandinas depict “it”
“as different” from the inner controller, respectively in the passages.
‘He who abiding in intelligence’ (Bṛh. 3 7 22 ¹). ‘He who abiding in
the soul’ (Śat. Br 14 6.7.30 ²)
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection: Let then the individual soul, and not pradhāna
be denoted 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 Kaṇvas, ‘as well as’
the Mādhyandinas “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
Kaṇvas read: ‘He who abiding within intelligence’ (Bṛh. 3.7.22),
the Mādhyandinas 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’ (Śat. Br. 14.5.7.30). There
being the denial of any other seer in the passage: ‘There is no seer
other than Him’ (Bṛh. 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

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. B ² P. 1074, line 18. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. B
³ 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 object governed, the inner controller, the governor. Hence
the two are different.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 21.
126 VEDĀNTA-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'
(Chānd. 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 the 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 prakṛti 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 Upaniṣads (i.e. Vedāntins)
Here ends the section entitled 'The inner controller' (5).
1 The word 'Brahman' not included in the original text.
2 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