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

[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

[sū. 1. 3. 3.
146 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 1.]
the high' (Muṇḍ 3.2.8) The phrase 'high and low' means: One
to whom the high, i.e. Brahmā, Śiva, and the rest, are inferior The
phrase 'higher than the high' means: the Person who is higher than
the high, i e. the individual soul or prakṛti 1
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading slightly different, viz adds a 'ca' in the end.²
SŪTRA 3
"NOT THE INFERENCE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF TEXTS
TO THAT EFFECT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Pradhāna, which is arrived at through inference, is not that
support, on account of the absence of texts denoting it.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The support of the heaven, the earth and the rest cannot be
"the inference". The non-sentient cause which is without any
connection with Brahman, viz. pradhāna, inferred by the Sāṁkhyas
on the ground of non-sentient effects, like the elements and the rest ³,
is said to be "the inference", and that is not the support of the heaven,
the earth and the rest. Why? "On account of the absence of texts
to that effect." That is, the "text to that effect" is 'tac-chabda',
"absence of text to that effect" is 'atac-chabda', on account of
that ⁴, or on account of the absence, here, of texts denoting the

1 Note that Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa understand the word 'Vyapadeśāt'
as referring to different passages.
2 Śrī. B. 1 2 3, p. 283, Part 1. ŚK. B. 1.3.2, p. 401, Part 4.
3 First, we infer that every effect must have a cause, that cause another
cause and so on, and finally there must be an uncaused first cause. Secondly,
we infer that this uncaused first cause must be non-sentient, since the effects
which we perceive are non-sentient, and the effect and its cause must be similar
in nature. It is in this way that the Sāṁkhyas arrive at non-sentient first
cause or pradhāna.
4 This explains the compound 'atac-chabdāt'.

[sū. 1. 3. 4. 147
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA
inferrible pradhāna. On the contrary, there are texts denoting a
sentient being, such as, ‘He who is omniscient’ (Muṇḍ 1.1.9., 2 2.7)
and so on.
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading different, viz. take this sūtra and the next as one sūtra.¹
―――――
SŪTRA 4
“AND THE BEARER OF THE VITAL-BREATH.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“The bearer of the vital-breath” also is not the support of the
heaven, the earth and the rest Why? On account of the very same
absence of texts to that effect.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The words: ‘not, on account of the absence of texts to that
effect’ are to be supplied from the preceding aphorism. “The bearer
of the vital-breath”, i.e the individual soul, too, is not the support
of the heaven, the earth and the rest, on account of the absence of
texts to that effect;—that means: although the term ‘soul’ is equally
applicable to the individual soul and the Supreme Soul, yet just as
in this section, there are texts like ‘Him alone know as one —He is
the bridge to immortality’ (Muṇḍ 2.2 5), ‘He whois omniscient’ (Muṇḍ.
1.1.9; 2.2.7) and so on, establishing the peculiar qualities of the Supreme
Soul, so there are no texts here, establishing the peculiar qualities
of the individual soul;—also because it is impossible for the individual
soul, which is atomic by nature, to be the support of the heaven,
the earth and the rest. This aphorism is taken separately, because
of its association with the following aphorisms.²
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ Śrī B. 1.3.3, p. 283, Part 1.
ŚK. B. 1.3.3, p. 403, Part 4.
² That is, it would not have been necessary to introduce a special sūtra
for the individual soul,—which like pradhāna is precluded in the preceding sūtra,
—if it were not for the reasons given in the following three sūtras, which apply
only to the individual soul, and not to pradhāna.

148 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 3. 5–6.
ADH. 1.]
COMPARISON
All others omit the 'ca' in the end ¹
SŪTRA 5
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF DIFFERENCE”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Moreover, “on account of the designation of difference” also
between the knower and the object to be known, the support of the
heaven, the earth and the rest is not the bearer of the vital-breath,
(or the individual soul)
Vedānta-kaustubha
The bearer of the vital-breath is not to be understood as the
support of the heaven, the earth and the rest Why? “On account
of the designation of difference”, i.e. because the difference between
the two, viz. between the individual soul—which is possessed of
little knowledge and is subject to bondage and release through the
Lord’s māyā consisting of the three gunas—and the Omniscient
Lord, as the knower and the object to be known, is designated by the
holy Scripture itself in the passage. ‘Him alone know as one’ (Muṇḍ.
2.2 5) The purpose of this repeated declarations of difference is to
point out that with a view to attaining His nature, one should practise
meditation on Him, based on a true knowledge about Him.
SŪTRA 6
“ON ACCOUNT OF THE TOPIC.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The Supreme Self being the topic, the individual soul is not to
be understood as the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest.
¹ Ś.B. 1.3.5, p. 310. Śrī. B. 1.3.4, p. 283, Part 1.
Bh. B. 1.3.5, p. 52. ŚK. B. 1.3.4, p 404, Part 4.
B.B. 1.3.5.

[sū. 1. 3 7.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 149
Vedānta-kaustubha
It is not that the individual soul constitutes the topic so that
it may be understood here. None but the Supreme Soul is the topic
here, as evident from the introductory passage. “ ‘What, my
reverend Sir, being known, all this comes to be known” ? ’ (Muṇḍ.
1.1.3),—all things do not become known when the individual soul
is known, since all things have not the individual soul as their soul—
and as established by the fact that in the passage: ‘Now, the higher
is that whereby that Imperishable is apprehended’ (Muṇḍ. 1.1.5)
and so on, the Supreme Soul alone is referred to.
SŪTRA 7
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF ABIDING AND EATING.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“On account of the abiding” of the Highest Self as a non-eater,
as well as ‘on account of the eating’ of the individual soul, as laid
down in the text: ‘Two birds’ (Muṇḍ. 3.1.1; cf also Śvet. 4.6 1),
the individual soul is not the support of the heaven and the earth.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author is once more explaining statements regarding the
difference between the individual soul and Brahman.
The individual soul is not the support of the heaven, the earth
and the rest. Why? “On account of abiding and eating”, “sthiti”
and “odana” (make) “sthityodane”—on account of that 2. “On
account of the abiding” of one bird in the tree, i.e. the body, without
eating the fruit of work and shining, and “on account of the eating”
of the fruit of work by the other as subject to karmas,—as laid down
in the text which refors to the support of the heaven, the earth and
the rest, viz. ‘Of these two, one tastes the sweet berry, the other
looks on without eating’ (Muṇḍ. 1.1.3),—the difference between the
individual soul and Supreme Soul is known. Hence, it is established
1 Ś. R, Bh, ŚK, B
2 This explains the compound ‘sthityodanābhyām’

150 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ 1. 3. 8.
ADH. 2.]
that the independent and omniscient Supreme Soul alone is the bridge
to immortality; and as the soul of all, He is also the support of the
heaven, the earth and the rest.
Here ends the section entitled 'The heaven, the earth and the
rest' (1)
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Reading and interpretation same, but points out at the end in
his usual manner that the distinction between the individual soul
and Brahman is no more real than that between the ether within a
pot and the universal ether and so on.¹
Adhikaraṇa 2: The section entitled 'The plenty'.
(Sūtras 8-9)
SŪTRA 8
"THE PLENTY (IS THE LORD), BECAUSE OF THE TEACHING (OF IT)
AS ABOVE SERENITY (VIZ. THE VITAL-BREATH)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The Plenty, taught by the highest teacher, the venerable Sanat-
kumāra, to our preceptor, the reverend Nārada, in the passage:
'But the Plenty alone should be enquired after' (Chānd. 7.22 1 ²),
is not the vital-breath, but the Highest Person Why? "Because
of the teaching" of the Plenty as "above" the vital-breath.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that the
text: 'But the Plenty alone should be enquired after' (Chānd. 7.22.1)
and so on, refers to Brahman.
¹ Ś.B 1 3.7, p. 31 ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[sū. 1. 3. 8.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 151
The following is recorded by the Chāndogas: '“It has been heard
by me from men like you that one who knows the soul crosses over
sorrow. I am such a sorrowing one, reverend sir! Cause me, sir,
to cross over the sorrow”' (Chānd. 7.1.3), thus asked by Nārada,
his preceptor, the reverend Sanatkumāra, the teacher of the doctrine
of salvation, taught: 'The name is Brahman' (Chānd. 7 1.5). Again,
asked thus: '“Is there, sir, more than name”?' (Chānd. 7.1.5),
he taught: '“Speech, verily, is more than name”' (Chānd. 7.2.1).
In this way, fifteen objects, beginning with name and ending with
the vital-breath, were taught.¹ After having taught the vital-breath,
he, without being asked any further question, taught the following
'“But he, verily, speaks superiorly who speaks superiorly through
truth”' (Chānd. 7.16.1), '“But the Plenty alone should be enquired
after”. “I enquire, sir, after the Plenty.” “Where one does not see
another, does not hear another, does not know another, that is the
Plenty. But where one sees another, hears another, knows another,
that is the small”' (Chānd. 7.23.1–24.1). Here the term 'plenty'
(bhūman) denotes 'muchness'. It is derived in the following manner:
The suffix 'imanic' is added to the word 'bahu' (much) in the sense of
'the nature thereof'², in accordance with the rule. 'The (suffix)
“imanic” is optionally added to the words “pṛthu” and the rest' (Pāṇ.
5.1.122, SD. K. 1784 ³) (in order to indicate the sense 'the nature
thereof'—Pāṇ. 5.1.119, SD. K. 1781). Then the root (viz. bahu)
and the suffix (viz. imanic) undergo a change in accordance with the
rule: 'After “bahu”, the first letters of “iman” and “īyas” affixes
are elided, and “bahu” is replaced by the word “bhū”' (Pāṇ. 6.4.154,
158; SD. K. 2017 ⁴). Here 'muchness' means 'immensity' (i.e.
quantitative greatness), and not numerosity (i.e. numerical greatness),
because just as the term 'bahu' denotes number, as in the examples:
'In expressing numerosity the plural case affix is used' (Pāṇ. 1.4.21 :
SD. K. 187 ⁵), 'Many, purified by the penance of knowledge' (Gītā.
4.10), 'After many births' (Gītā. 7.19) and so on, so it is seen to be
applied in the sense of 'immensity' also, in contrast to smallness, as
in the example: 'He who renders service, be it great or small, to one
who has heard Scripture'. Here, too, the term 'plenty' being used
¹ Vide Chānd. 7.1 et seq. ² Tasya bhāvaḥ
³ P. 894, vol. 1. Correct quotation translated: 'Pṛthvādibhya imanic vā'.
⁴ P. 908, vol. 1. That is, bahu+imanic = bhū+man = bhūman.
⁵ P. 114, vol. 1.

[SŪ. 1 3. 8.
152 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.]
in contrast to smallness in the passage: 'There is no pleasure in the
small' (Chānd 7 23.1), its meaning is nothing but 'immensity'.
Thus, there is no pleasure in the small, but the Plenty alone is pleasure.
Hence 'The Plenty alone is to be enquired into' (Chānd 7 23 1).
That is, the Plenty, or the Supreme Soul alone, who is of the form of
pleasure characterized by unsurpassed greatness, should be enquired
after by one desiring salvation and wishing to attain pleasure charac-
terized by unsurpassed greatness When the reverend Sanatkumāra
said this, the reverend Nārada said: '"I enquire, sir, after the Plenty"'
(Chānd 7 23.1) That is, 'Sir', meaning, O reverend teacher ! I
desire to know the Plenty alone in particular. Therefore, Sanat-
kumāra told him the characteristic marks of the Plenty by means of
a positive (indicating what it is) and a negative (indicating what it is
not) proposition, thus 'where' (Chānd. 7 24 1) and so on,--this is
the sense of the text.
Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether the Plenty is the vital-breath
or the Supreme Soul. The vital-breath, holds the prima facie view,
because in the previous passage. 'The vital-breath is more than hope'
(Chānd. 7.15.1), the vital-breath alone is indicated, and because after
the teaching about the vital-breath, there are no further question
and answer (as there were in the previous cases), viz. '"Is there, sir,
more than name" ?' (Chānd. 7 1.5), '"Speech, verily, is more than
name"' (Chānd. 7.2.1) By the term 'vital-breath', the individual
soul, endowed with the vital-breath, is to be understood, and not
merely a kind of air,--because, from the passage: 'The vital-breath is
the father, the vital-breath the mother' (Chānd 7.15 1), the vital-
breath is known to be a sentient being; and because in the introductory
text, viz. 'One who knows the soul crosses over sorrow' (Chānd
7.1.3), as well as in the concluding text 'To the soul alone belongs
all this' 1 (Chānd. 7.25.2), the term 'soul' is found employed The
passage. 'Where one does not see another' (Chānd. 7.24.1) and so
on, too, fittingly applies to the individual soul, because all its activities
like seeing and the rest cease during its state of deep sleep; and further,
because all its practical activities like external perceptions and the
rest cease when its own real nature, different from the body, the sense-
organs, buddhi and the rest, is known. Hereby, it should be known
that texts like: 'Verily, the Plenty is pleasure' (Chānd 7.23 1),
1 Correct quotation · 'Ātmaivedam sarvam'. Vide Chānd 7 25 2, p. 402.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 8
ADH. 2] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 153
'Verily, the vital-breath is immortal' (Bṛh. 1.6.3) and so on, are all
to be explained as referring to the individual soul, possessing the
vital-breath.
With regard to it, we reply: The Plenty is the Supreme Soul alone
and not the individual soul, possessing the vital-breath. Why?
"Because of the teaching (of it) as above serenity." "Serenity"
means one in whom there is complete serenity, i.e. the individual
soul, celebrated in the Scriptural text: 'Thus serenity, having arisen
from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed
in its own form' (Chānd. 8.3.4) and so on. (The above phrase
means: because of the teaching of it as) "above" that which is denoted
by the term: "vital-breath". In the text: 'But he speaks superiorly
who speaks through truth' (Chānd. 7.26.1) from the term 'but',
the difference between the subsequent teaching about the Plenty
and the prior one about the vital-breath is known. The sense is that
since the teaching about the Plenty is different from the teaching
about the vital-breath, the meaning of the word "plenty" is different
from the meaning of the term "vital-breath."
(An alternative explanation of the sūtra.) Or, else, (the phrase
means) because of the teaching of the worshipper of truth as higher
than the worshipper of the vital-breath, in the passage 'But he,
verily, speaks superiorly' (Chānd. 7.16.1); i.e. owing to a difference
between the worshippers, there is a difference between the objects
to be worshipped as well. The sense is this: If it be objected: In
accordance with your statement, viz. that the Plenty is that alone,
which is denoted by the term truth, demarcated as higher than the
individual soul,—just as each of the fifteen objects, beginning with
name and ending with speech, is taught as successively higher by the
reverend Sanatkumāra, asked by the reverend Nārada,—how do you
know that truth is taught as something higher,—(we reply:) Having
stated that a knower of the vital-breath is a superior speaker in the
passage: 'Verily, by seeing this, by thinking this, by knowing this,
one becomes a superior speaker' (Chānd. 7.15.4), and having distin-
guished the worshipper of truth from the worshipper of the vital-
breath by the term 'but' in the passage: 'But he, verily, speaks
superiorly, who speaks superiorly through truth' (Chānd. 7.16.1),
Scripture teaches truth, the cause of being a superior speaker in this
case (Chānd. 7.16.1), as higher than the vital-breath, the cause of
being a superior speaker in the previous case (Chānd. 7.15.4).

[SŪ. 1. 3. 8.
154 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.]
The instrumental case 'through truth' (satyena) follows the rule:
'The third case-ending is added to a word denoting a mark or an
attribute which indicates the existence of a particular state or condi-
tion' (Pāṇ. 2 3.21; SD. K. 566 1). The clause 'who speaks', etc.
means: who speaks superiorly through truth which figuratively
implies the Supreme Brahman, the object to be worshipped. The word
'truth' is well known to be denoting Brahman, as in the passages:
'Verily, the name of this Brahman is truth' (Chānd 8.3.4), 'Brahman
is truth, knowledge and infinite' (Tait 2 1) and so on. 'Being a
superior speaker' means being the speaker of the supremacy of one's
own object of worship, and this amounts to declaring the unsurpassed-
ness of the Deity to be worshipped. The suffix 'śatṛ' in 'by seeing
this' and the rest follows the rule: 'The present participle is used to
denote the manner or the cause of an action' (Pāṇ. 3.2.126, SD. K.
3103 2) That is, the direct vision of the Deity to be worshipped is
the cause of being a superior speaker The sense is that it becomes
possible for one to be such a superior speaker only through the grace
of the Deity worshipped by him, and apprehended through direct
vision Moreover, the very permission to speak the truth, giving
up being a superior speaker through merely the vital-breath, asked
for in the passage: '"May I, sir, speak superiorly through truth"'
(Chānd. 7.16.1), indicates the termination of the section of the vital-
breath Here, the term 'soul', too, can have a consistent meaning
only if the Supreme Soul be understood, since to be the cause of all,
mentioned in the passage: 'To the self alone all this belongs' (Chānd.
7.26.1 3), is impossible on the part of any one else. His Holiness
will speak of this in subsequent aphorisms.4
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He gives two alternative explanations of the sūtra the last of
which agrees with the explanation given by Nimbārka. The first
explanation is: 'The Plenty (is Brahman), because it is immense joy,
and because it is taught as the highest'.5
1 P. 423, vol. 2. 2 P. 558, vol. 2.
3 For correct quotation see footnote 1, p. 152.
4 Vide Br. Sū. 2.1.4-35. 5 G.B. 1.3.8.

[sū. 1. 3. 9.
ADH. 2] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 155
SŪTRA 9
“ AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ATTRIBUTES.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“And” because attributes like ‘being of the form of unsurpassed
pleasure’, ‘being immortal’, ‘being established on one's own great-
ness’ and the rest are “appropriate” on the part of the Highest Self
alone, the Plenty is none but the Highest Self.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The attributes, mentioned in the section of the Plenty, which
are not possible on the part of any one else, being “appropriate”
in reference to the Highest Self alone, it is known that the Plenty
is the Highest Self. Thus, the passage: ‘Where one does not see
another’ (Chānd 7 24.1), means ‘where’ one, immersed in pleasure
characterized by unsurpassed greatness, ‘does not see’, i e. notice,
‘another’, i e. petty worldly pleasure, the contrary of the pleasure
which is characterized by greatness,—just as one who has drunk the
nectar, does not notice any other drink. Moreover, ‘where’ one,
plunged in pleasure, ‘does not see’ any sorrow, the contrary of pleasure,
i.e. comes to be endowed with every pleasure and delivered from
every sorrow. The term ‘where’ means ‘by being attached to whom’.
Such attributes of ‘being the giver of unsurpassed pleasure’, ‘being
the remover of all sorrow’ and the rest are appropriate on the part
of the Highest Self alone, and not on that of the individual soul,
denoted by the term ‘vital-breath’. Further, as the attributes of
‘being immortal by nature’, ‘being established on one's own great-
ness’, ‘being the creator of all’ and the rest,—mentioned in the pas-
sages: ‘“That which is the Plenty is, verily, the immortal’—‘Sir, On
what is it established?’ ‘On its own greatness’” (Chānd. 7.24.1),
‘“He alone is below”’ (Chānd. 7 25.1), ‘From the soul the vital-
breath’ (Chānd 7.26.1) and so on,—are appropriate on the part of
the Highest Self alone, so it is established that the Plenty is none but
the Highest Self.
Here ends the section entitled ‘The Plenty’ (2).

[SŪ. 1. 3, 10.
156 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3 ]
Adhikaraṇa 3. The section entitled 'The im-
perishable'. (Sūtras 10-12)
SŪTRA 10
"THE IMPERISHABLE (IS BRAHMAN), BECAUSE OF SUPPORTING
THE END OF THE ETHER."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The Imperishable is Brahman. Why? "Because of its support-
ing" the ether, indicated as the support of the effects in past, present
and future.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka passage: 'He said: "That, verily, is the Imperishable"'
(Bṛh 3 8 8) and so on, refers to Brahman.
In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka we read: '"In whom is the ether woven,
warp and woof?" He said: "That, verily, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas
call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short, non-long,
non-red, non-lubricous, without shadow"' (Bṛh 3.8 8) and so on.
A doubt arises, viz. whether here pradhāna is understood by the term
'Imperishable', or the individual soul, or the Supreme Brahman.
What is suggested, to begin with? The prima facie view is as follows:
Let pradhāna be denoted by the term 'Imperishable' because, to be
the supporter of its own effects fits in on its part, and because non-
grossness and the rest, too, fit in on its part, it being admitted to be
without form. Or, let the individual soul be implied by the term
'Imperishable', since it is possible for it to be the supporter of all
non-sentient objects, the objects of its own enjoyment.
With regard to it, we reply. The Imperishable is the Supreme
Brahman. Why? "On account of supporting (all things) ending
with the ether", i.e. on account of supporting that which ends with the
ether, viz. the group of effects beginning with the earth, or the group
of effects, beginning with the earth and ending with the ether. To the
query: '"That, O Yājñavalkya, which is above the heaven, that which
is beneath the earth, that which is between these heaven and the earth,
that which is past, present and future ¹, in whom is all that woven,
¹ Omits 'ācakṣata', vide Bṛh. 3 8 6, p 168.

[sū 1 3 10.
ADH 3] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 157
warp and woof ?'''' (Bṛh. 3 8 6), the answer being given: '''In the
ether alono all that is inter-woven, warp and woof''' (Bṛh 3.8.7),
Gārgī asked again: '''In whom, verily, is the ether interwoven, warp
and woof''?' (Bṛh. 3 8 7). Then, the answer given was that the
support of (all things), beginning with the earth and ending with the
other, is the Imperishable, in the passage: 'He said: "That, verily, is
the Imperishable''' (Bṛh. 3.8.8) and so on. Thus, on account of
supporting the group of effects, beginning with the earth and ending
with the ether, known from the above question and answer, the
Imperishable is none but Brahman
Or else, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra;) "The end",
i.e. the limit or the cause, of the "ether", meaning the atmospheric
ether ¹, is the non-manifest pradhāna,—"on account of supporting
it". That is, the Imperishable,—mentioned as the support of that
which is indicated as the support of all objects in past, present and
future, in the passage beginning: 'That which is above' (Bṛh. 3.7 7);
which is denoted by the term 'ether'; and which has the names 'non-
manifest', 'subtle', 'pradhāna' and the rest,—is not pradhāna, but
Brahman alono ²
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation of the term 'ambarānta' different, viz. '(all
things) ending with the ether' ³. Śaṁkara uses the term 'Brahman'
here ⁴, although evidently from his point of view Brahman cannot
be such a support, but Īśvara
¹ I.e the ether, in the ordinary sense, as distinguished from the ether which
denotes pradhāna
² Note that the first explanation given by Śrīnivāsa tallies with the expla-
nations of Śaṁkara and Bhāskara, the second with those of Rāmānuja and
Nimbārka and others
³ Ś B 1.3.10, p. 318 Bh. B. 1.3 10, p. 55. See Śrīnivāsa above.
⁴ P. 319, 'Na ca ayam ambarānta-dhṛtiḥ Brahmaṇo'nyatra saṁbhavati', etc.