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

[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

[sū. 1. 2. 22.
ADH. 6.]    VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA    127
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading different, viz. omits 'śārīraśca' in the beginning,
interpretation same.¹
Thus, according to Nimbārka, Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Bala-
deva:—
'Na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt ' (One sūtra )
'Śārīraścobhaye'pi hi bhedenainam adhīyate ' (One sūtra.)
According to Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha :—
'Na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt śārīraś ca.' (One sūtra )
'Ubhaye'pi hi bhedenainam adhīyate.' (One sūtra )
Adhikaraṇa 6 · The section entitled ‘ I n v i s i b i -
l i t y ’ (Sūtras 22–24)
SŪTRA 22
“ THAT WHICH POSSESSES THE QUALITIES OF INVISIBILITY AND
SO ON (IS BRAHMAN), ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF (HIS)
QUALITIES.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
That which is mentioned by the Ātharvaṇikas in the text:
'Invisible' (Muṇḍ. 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' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9 ³), etc.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the preceding section, pradhāna 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' (Muṇḍ 1.1.5), and so on refers to
Brahman, the author is disposing of the objection, viz Let pradhāna
¹ Śrī. B. 1.2.22, p. 260, Part I.
ŚK. B 1.2 22, p. 374, Part 1.
² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.        ³ Op. cit.

[SŪ 1. 2. 22.
128 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 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 Ātharvaṇa, it is said: 'There are two knowledges to be
known' (Muṇḍ. 1 1 4). Among these, the knowledge of works,
viz. the Ṛg-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' (Muṇḍ.
1.1.5-6), 'Without the vital-breath, without mind, pure, higher than the
high Imperishable' (Muṇḍ. 2 1.12) and so on. Here a doubt arises as
to whether here the Imperishable, the source of beings and possessed of
the qualities of invisibility and the rest, is pradhāna, 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 pradhāna
and the individual soul; as pradhāna 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,—let one of these two be
the Imperishable.
With regard to this, we reply: The Imperishable, 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' (Muṇḍ. 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, the source of beings.
If it be objected: This view is not reasonable. Having referred
to the Imperishable in the passage: 'The Imperishable is apprehended'
(Muṇḍ. 1.1.5), then again having designated the Imperishable as a
limit in the passage: 'Higher than the high Imperishable' (Muṇḍ.
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'
(Muṇḍ. 1.1.9). If here the Highest Self be understood by the word
¹ Vide Muṇḍ. 1.1.5.

[sū. 1. 2 22.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 129

‘Imperishable’ in the first passage, then how can the text: ‘Higher
than the Imperishable, the Light’ (Muṇḍ 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, O
Dhanañjaya” ’ (Gītā 7.7), as well as from the scriptural text: ‘There
is nothing higher than the Person’ (Kaṭha 3.11)² Hence, let either
pradhāna or the individual soul be the meaning of the word ‘Imperish-
able’, mentioned first, (Muṇḍ. 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, (Muṇḍ. 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’
(Muṇḍ. 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’ (Muṇḍ. 1.2.13), ‘As the hairs and the
body-hairs arise from a living person, so from the Imperishable arises
this Universe’ (Muṇḍ. 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’ (Muṇḍ. 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’
(Muṇḍ. 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. pradhāna 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 pradhāna which is superior to its own modifica-
tions; and ‘higher’ than this pradhāna is the Highest Self. Or, else,
the Supreme Person is ‘higher’ than the Person within the aggregate
(or Hiraṇyagarbha) who is higher than the Imperishable, viz. pradhāna,
—this is the sense

[SŪ 1. 2 23.
130 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 6 |
SŪTRA 23
"ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF ATTRIBUTES AND
DIFFERENCE, NOT THE TWO OTHERS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Pradhāna 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' (Muṇḍ. 1.1 6¹); and the designation of difference is:
'Higher than the high Imperishable' (Muṇḍ 2.1.2²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
"The two others", i.e. pradhāna 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' (Muṇḍ. 1.1 6) in
the text concerned excludes pradhāna and the individual soul from
being the Imperishable, the source of beings,—on account of that;
in the text: 'Higher than the high Imperishable' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.2),
the difference of the Imperishable, the source of beings, from these
two is designated,—on account of that as well.
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
They interpret this sūtra in the same way. The word 'viśeṣaṇa'
interpreted differently, viz. 'Because this section distinguishes the
Imperishable from pradhāna and the individual soul, since it aims at
proving that through the knowledge of one there is the knowledge of
all'.³
1 Not quoted by others.
2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.
3 Śrī B. 1.2 23, p. 364, Part 1. ŚK. B. 1 2 23, p 383, Part 4.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 24.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 131
SŪTRA 24
"ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF (HIS) FORM "
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"Also on account of the mention of the form" of the Highest
Self in the passage: 'Fire is his head' (Muṇḍ. 2 1 4¹) and so on,
not the other two.
Vedānta-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' (Muṇḍ 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
pradhāna 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 sūtra he reads a sūtra 'prakaraṇāt', not found in
other commentaries.
1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

132 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ 1 2 25.
ADH. 7 ]
Adhikarana 7· The section entitled 'Vaiśvā-
nara' (Sūtras 25-33)
SŪTRA 25
" VAIŚVĀNARA (IS THE LORD), ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISTINCTIVE
ATTRIBUTES OF THE COMMON TERM."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
'Vaiśvānara' is the Highest Self alone, because that the word
'Vaiśvānara', 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.
Vedānta-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
Vaiśvānara also, the author shows that the text: " 'Who is our soul ?
What is Brahman " ? ' (Chānd. 5 11.1) refers to the Lord.
In the Chāndogya, the following passage is found, beginning:
" 'Who is our soul ? What is Brahman " ? ' (Chānd. 5 11 1), " 'You
know now that Vaiśvānara Self, tell us about Him alone" ' (Chānd
5.11.6), and continuing: 'But he who meditates on the Vaiśvānara
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 Vaiśvānara 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, the
breast, indeed, the sacrificial altar, the hairs the sacrificial grass, the
heart the Gārhapatya fire, the mind the Anvāhāryapacana fire, the
mouth the Āhavanīya fire' (Chānd. 5.18.1-2). A doubt arises as
to whether here Vaiśvānara 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 'Vaiśvānara' is a common term. Why ?
Because it is applied to the gastric fire, as in the passage: 'This is
the Vaiśvānara fire which is within this person, by means of which

[sū. 1. 2 25.
ADH 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 133
this food that is eaten is digested. Its noise is that which one hears
on covering the ears. When one is on the point of departing one does
not hear this sound' (Bṛh 5 9 1); because it is applied also to the
elemental fire, as in the passage: 'For the whole world, the gods
made Agni Vaiśvānara a sign of the day' (Ṛg. V. 10.88.12 ¹);
because it is applied to the fire-god too, as in the passage: 'May we
be in the favour of Vaiśvānara, for verily, he is the king of the worlds,
bliss, lustrous' (Ṛg 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 Vaiśvānara' (Tait. Br 3 1 8 7 ³). 'This Vaiśvā-
nara arises as having all forms, as the vital-breath, as fire'
(Praśna 1 7)
With regard to it, we reply: Vaiśvānara 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 'Vaiśvānara',—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 'Vaiśvānara', are present here,
as we know them from the text: 'Of this Vaiśvānara Self, the head
indeed is the brightly shining (heaven)' (Chānd. 5 18 2) and so on.
Hence, the word 'Vaiśvānara', 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
our soul? What is Brahman?'" (Chānd. 5.11.1).
1 P. 347, lines 7-8
2 P 81, lines 3-4.
3 P. 265, lines 3-4, (vol 3). Correct quotation: 'Tad . . . hṛdaye
agnau vaiśvānare prāsyat'.

[sū 1. 2. 26.
134 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7 ]
SŪTRA 26
"THAT WHICH IS STATED BY SMṚTI MUST BE AN INDICATION,
THUS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The form, stated in Smṛti as well, in the passage: 'Of whom,
fire is the mouth, the heaven the head' (Mahā. 12 1656.6 ¹), "must"
be a decisive factor in proving that Vaiśvānara is the Highest Self.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The word "thus" implies the reason. For this reason, too,
Vaiśvānara is the Highest Self alone,—because "that which is stated
by Smṛti must be an indication" of the fact that the word 'Vaiśvānara'
denotes the Highest Self The phrase "That which is stated by
Smṛti" 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)' (Chānd 5 18 2) and so on,
is mentioned also by a Smṛti which follows Scripture. That very
thing must be "an indication", i.e. a decisive factor here,—this is
the sense The Smṛti-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' (Mahā. 12 1656b–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 Smṛti 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 sūtra:) the phrase: "That
which is stated by Smṛti" 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' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.4), and so on, as well as in the stated Smṛti-passages
as the form of the Highest Self, that alone, is stated here (in Chānd.
5.18.2),—that form must be an indication, i.e a sign, that Vaiśvānara
is the Highest Self.
¹ Ś. R ² P. 424, lines 2-3, vol. 3