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

[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

[sū. 1. 2. 27.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 135
SŪTRA 27
"IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (VAIŚVĀNARA IS THE GASTRIC FIRE) ON
ACCOUNT OF 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 "1
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that since the word 'Vaiśvānara' 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,
Vaiśvānara 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 Vaiśvānara is none but the Highest Self.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected: The Highest Self cannot be denoted by the
word 'Vaiśvānara' 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'.3
Those reasons are as follows: First, the 'word' here is 'Vaiśvānara',
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
Vaiśvānara and the word 'fire' in the Vājasaneyaka-text, viz. 'This is
the Vaiśvānara fire' (Śat. Br. 10 6.1.11 4). Thirdly, a triad of fires
is designated in the text ; 'The heart is the Gārhapatya fire, the mind
the Anvāhārya' (Chānd. 5.18.2) and so on. Fourthly, Vaiśvānara
is declared by Scripture to be the support of the offering to the
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
1 The C S S ed. omits 'iti cen na', p. 11.
2 Śabdādayaḥ.
3 This explains the compound 'śabdādibhyaḥ'.
4 P. 805, line 17

[sū. 1. 2 28.
136 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.]
vital-breaths in the passage 'Therefore, the first food which one may
come across should be offered' (Chānd. 5 19 1) And, finally, Vaiśvā-
nara abides "within", which, more particularly, is a characteristic
mark of the gastric fire,—the Vājasaneyins declare that Vaiśvānara
abides within in the passage 'For he who knows this Vaiśvānara
fire to be like a man, abiding within a man' (Śat 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 Vaiśvānara
(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 Vaiśvānara 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 Vājasa-
neyins "read" "him", i e. Vaiśvānara, "as a person" in the passage:
'That Vaiśvānara fire is the person' (Śat 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" ¹ 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' (Śvet. 3 15), 'There is nothing higher
than the Person' (Katha 3 11) and so on.
SŪTRA 28
"FOR THAT VERY REASON, NOT THE DEITY, NOR THE ELEMENT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
On account of those "very" reasons stated above, "the deity and
the element" are "not" to be understood by the word 'Vaiśvānara'.
¹ 'Ca' in the sūtra.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 29.
ADH 7 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 137
Vedānta-kaustubha
“For that very reason”, i.e. on account of the very reasons
stated above, the presiding “deity” of fire is not to be understood
the word ‘Vaiśvānara’, and the “element”, i.e. the elemental fire,
also is not to be understood.
SŪTRA 29
“ (THERE IS) NO CONTRADICTION, EVEN (IF THE WORD “ VAISVĀ-
NARA ” DENOTES THE LORD) DIRECTLY, JAIMINI (THINKS SO).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The Lord Vaiśvānara is ‘all and man’, i.e. the soul of all,—to
be meditated on “directly” as such,—thus, the teacher “Jaimini”
thinks, involves “no contradiction”.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, the word ‘Vaiśvānara’ has been proved to be referring to
Brahman, first on the ground of the reasons like ‘distinctive attributes
of a common term’ (Br. Sū. 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.
Sū. 1.2.27) and so on. Now, by showing that the word ‘Vaiśvānara’
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 ‘Vaiśvānara’,
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 Vaiśvānara
is to be meditated on “directly” as the Highest Self indeed. This
view involves “no contradiction”.¹
¹ I.e. it has been said in the previous sūtra that Vaiśvānara stands for the
Lord only so far as the Lord is qualified by the gastric fire. But now it is said
that Vaiśvānara stands for the Lord directly, without any qualification.

[sū. 1. 2. 30.
138 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.]
Etymologically, ‘Vaiśvānara’ 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. ‘ā’ in the word ‘Vaiśvānara’) follows from the rule ‘when “nara”
follows “viśva”, the “a” in the latter is lengthened to designate a
name’ (Pāṇ 6 3 129, SD. K 1048¹). The taddhita-suffix (by which
the word ‘Vaiśvānara’ is derived from the word ‘Vaiśvanara’) is
added without changing the meaning, as in the case of ‘rākṣasa’
(derived from ‘rakṣas’), ‘vāyasa’ (derived from ‘vayas’) and so on.²
The co-ordination of the words ‘Agni’ and ‘Vaiśvānara’, too,
is appropriate ‘Agni’ is ‘one who goes, i.e. goes to or manifests
himself in the heart-lotus’,—the ‘na’ (in the root ‘aṅg’) is elided in
accordance with the rule. ‘And, the “na” of “aṅga” is elided’³
(Uṇādi-sūtra 490)⁴—, or ‘one who causes one to go, i.e. causes the
first birth of the Universe
SŪTRA 30
“ON ACCOUNT OF MANIFESTATION, ĀŚMARATHYA (THINKS SO).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
With a view to favouring His worshippers who are devoted to
Him alone and to none else, the 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 “Āśmarathya”
thinks.
Vedānta-kaustubha
(The author) explains, in accordance with the approbation of
Āśmarathya, the text about that which is of the size of merely a
span.
In the text: ‘But who meditates on the Vaiśvānara Self as of
the measure of a span only and as of an unlimited dimension’ (Chānd.

¹ P. 654, vol. 1.
² Vide Pāṇ 4.1 104, SD K. 1106, p. 682, vol. 1, and Pāṇ. 5.4 38, SD. K.
2106, p. 936, vol. 1
³ And ‘ni’ is added, as mentioned in the sūtra 488. Thus, aṅg = ag+ni =
agni.
⁴ SD. K., p. 634, vol 2.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 31
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-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
the limited space of a pillar as a man-lion.² This is the view of the
teacher Āśmarathya
Or, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra), 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 "Āśmarathya",—this
is the sense.
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation of the word 'abhivyakteḥ' 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
SŪTRA 31
"ON ACCOUNT OF REMEMBRANCE, BĀDARI (THINKS SO)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-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 "Bādari".
¹ Abhitaḥ vigataḥ mānaḥ = abhivimānaḥ.
² The reference is to the killing of Hiraṇyakaśipu by the Lord in the form
of a man-lion Vide Mahā 3.15835, etc.
³ Śrī. B 1 2.30, p. 274, Part 1 ŚK. B. 1.2.30, p 392 Part 1

[SŪ. 1. 2 32.
140 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 7 |
Vedānta-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 "Bādari"
————
SŪTRA 32
"ON ACCOUNT OF IDENTIFICATION, SO JAIMINI THINKS, FOR THUS
(SCRIPTURE) SHOWS "
Vedānta-pārijāta-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 Vaiśvānara-vidyā, practised by a worshipper
of Vaiśvānara,—"so" the teacher "Jaimini" thinks That very thing
the scriptural text 'Now, he who offers the Agni-hotra, knowing this
thus' (Chānd 5 24 2 ²), 'shows'.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be asked: If the Highest Self, having thus the three worlds
as His body, be denoted by the term 'Vaiśvānara', 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 Gārhapatya fire, the mind
the Anvāhāryapacana fire' (Chānd. 5 18.2)?—the author replies
here:
——————————————————————————————————————————
¹ I.e. of those who meditate on Vaiśvānara
² Ś, R, SK.

[sū. 1. 2. 33.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-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 Vaiśvānara-vidyā, practised by the worshippers of Vaiśvānara,
— "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' (Chānd. 5.24 2).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
The interpretation of the word 'sampatteḥ' different, viz 'on
account of mysterious power or lordliness'. Hence the sūtra ·
'(The Lord is said to be of the measure of a span) on account of (His)
mysterious power, so Jaimini (thinks), for thus Scripture shows (viz
that the Lord is possessed of such powers)'.¹
SŪTRA 33
"AND THEY RECORD THIS IN THAT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"And they record" "this", i.e. Vaiśvānara 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 Vedānta-
pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā
texts and composed by the Reverend Nimbārka
Vedānta-kaustubha
And moreover, the Vājins "record" "this", i.e. the Lord Vaiśvā-
nara, "in that", i.e. in the body of the worshipper, in the passage ·
'He who knows this Vaiśvānara fire as a man, abiding within man'
(Śat. Br. 10.6.1.11). That is to say, these too, viz. his being a person,
¹ G.B. 1.2.32, p. 142, Chap. 1.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 33.
142 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.]
as well as his abiding within, are indicative of the fact that Vaiśvānara
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 Vaiśvānara is the Highest Self.
Here ends the section entitled 'Vaiśvānara' (7).
Here ends the second quarter of the first chapter in the commentary,
the holy Vedānta-kaustubha.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Interpretation different, viz. 'And they (viz the Ātharvani-
kas) record this (viz. the existence of such mysterious powers) in that
(viz. in the Lord)'.¹
Résumé
The second quarter of the first chapter contains:—
(1) 33 sūtras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Nimbārka ;
(2) 32 sūtras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Śaṃkara ;
(3) 33 sūtras and 6 adhikaranas, according to Rāmānuja ;
(4) 32 sūtras and 7 adhikaranas, according to Bhāskara ;
(5) 33 sūtras and 9 adhikaranas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha ;
(6) 33 sūtras and 7 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva.
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara and Baladeva omit the sūtra 16 in
Nimbārka's commentary. Nimbārka omits the sūtra 24 in Bhās-
kara's commentary.
1 G.B. 1.2.33, p. 143, Chap. 1.

FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyāya)
THIRD QUARTER (Pāda)
Adhikaraṇa 1 The section entitled 'The
heaven, the earth, and so on' (Sūtras 1-7)
SŪTRA 1
"THE SUPPORT OF THE HEAVEN, THE EARTH AND THE REST (IS
BRAHMAN ALONE), ON ACCOUNT OF THE TERM 'OWN' "
Vedānta-pārijāta saurabha
"The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest", stated in
the passage 'In whom the heaven' (Mund. 2.2.5¹) 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.
Vedānta-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 Muṇḍaka, 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 words.
He is the bridge to immortality' (Muṇḍ. 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 pradhāna or the
individual soul, or the Supreme Soul, the cause of the birth and the
rest of the world. What is suggested here to begin with? The
prima facie view is as follows: Let pradhāna 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
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

144 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1 3. 1
ADH 1.]
by the text 'Infinite, boundless' (Bṛh. 2.4.12) The term 'self'
too may be applied to pradhāna thus —
Pradhāna 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' (Muṇḍ.
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-bhuvāu ādi', i.e. all the things beginning with the heaven,
and ending with the vital-breath,—their support is the Highest Self.
Why? "On account of the term 'own'", i.e. on account 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' (Muṇḍ.
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' (Muṇḍ. 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. Ār. 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' (Mahānār. 11.9). In accordance with the following scrip-
tural and Smṛti texts, viz. 'Not born, he is born in many ways'
(Vj. S. 31.169 2; Tait. Ār. 3.13.1 3), 'Though unborn, the unchange-
able soul' (Gītā 4.6), it is also possible for Him to be born in many
1 P. 199 2 P. 857, line 17. 3 P. 201.

[sū. 1. 3. 2.
ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 145
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
SŪTRA 2
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION (OF BRAHMAN) THE OBJECT
TO BE APPROACHED BY THE FREED."
Vedānta-pārijāta-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 Brahmā, then the knower, having discarded
merit and demerit, stainless, attains the highest identity' (Muṇḍ.
3 1 13 ²) and so on.
Vedānta-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 fettor
of mundane existence is "the object to be approached by the freed",
on account of the "designation", 1.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' (Muṇḍ. 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
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ Viz. Br. Sū. 1.3.2–7. ² R, ŚK, B.
³ This explains the compound 'muktopasṛpya-vyapadeśāt'.
10