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

[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.

[sū. 1. 3. 11-12.
158 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.]
SŪTRA 11
“ AND THIS (SUPPORTING) (BELONGS TO THE LORD), ON ACCOUNT
OF COMMAND.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“And this” supporting belongs to the Highest Person alone.
Why? Because (the Imperishable, the supporter) is mentioned by
Scripture to be a commander, in the passage: ‘Verily, at the command
of this Imperishable, Gārgī, the sun and the moon stand held apart’
(Brh 3 8 9 ¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz . Very well, let pradhāna be not denoted by
the term ‘Imperishable’. But, as, to be such a support fits in on the
part of the individual soul, the enjoyer of material objects; as, possess-
ing the attributes of non-grossness and the rest too fits in on its part;
and, as, finally, if the individual soul be understood, then an etymo-
logical meaning (of the term ‘Imperishable’) is possible, viz.: ‘The
Imperishable is that which does not perish, i.e. the individual soul,—
let the individual soul alone be implied by the term ‘Imperishable’,—
the author replies here:—
The supporting of the body and the rest alone,—the abode where
the individual soul experiences the fruits of its own works,—is
possible by the individual soul “And this” supporting is the work
of the Highest Self alone, and not of any one else. Why? “On
account of command”, i.e. because of the mention of command
in the passage. ‘Verily, at the command of this Imperishable, Gārgī,
the sun and the moon stand held apart’ (Brh. 3.8.9) and so on.
‘Prakṛṣṭa’, i.e. unrestricted, ‘śāsana’ is ‘praśāsana’, i e. unrestricted
commanding.²
SŪTRA 12
“ AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXCLUSION OF ANOTHER NATURE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Here, by the term ‘Imperishable’ neither pradhāna or the indivi-
dual soul can be understood. The Supreme Being alone is the meaning
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
² This explains the word ‘praśāsanāt’ in the sūtra

[SŪ. 1. 3. 13.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 159
of the term 'Imperishable' Why? "On account of the exclusion
of another nature", in the passage: 'Verily, that Imperishable, Gārgī,
is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the
unknown knower' (Bṛh. 3.8.11 ¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason, too, the Highest Self alone is denoted by the
term 'Imperishable'. Why? "On account of the exclusion of other
nature", i.e. the "nature" "of another", viz. of pradhāna or the
individual soul, or the "nature" "of another two" (make) "another
nature",² "on account of the exclusion" of that.³ The concluding
passage, viz. '"Verily, that Imperishable, Gārgī, is the unseen seer,
the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the unknown knower.
None but it is a seer, . . ⁴, none but it is a thinker, none but
it is a knower. Verily in this Imperishable, Gārgī, the ether is inter-
woven, warp and woof"' (Bṛh. 3 8.11), excludes a nature other than
Brahman. Thus, pradhāna is excluded on the ground of the attributes
of a sentient being, viz. being a seer and the rest; and the individual
soul is excluded on the ground of the teaching that the Being who
is unseen by all is the seer of all, and so on. Hence, it is established
that by the term 'Imperishable' the Highest Self alone is understood.
Here ends the section entitled 'The imperishable' (3).
Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled 'One sees'.
(Sūtra 13)
SŪTRA 13
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION (OF HIS QUALITIES), HE
IS THE OBJECT WHICH ONE SEES."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The object which one sees, mentioned in the passage 'He sees
the Person, lying in the city' (Praśna 5.5 ⁵), is not Brahmā, residing
¹ Ś, B, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Anya-bhāva.
³ This explains the compound 'anya-bhāva-vyāvṛtteḥ'.
⁴ Omitted portion: 'None else other than it is a hearer' Vide Bṛh. 3.8.11,
p 171
⁵ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B

160 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ 1. 3. 13
ADH. 4.]
in the Brahma-world and included within the Brahmāṇḍa.¹ But
the Highest Self alone, the topic of discussion, the Lord of His own
special and non-material Brahma-world, is "the object which one
sees". Why? "On account of the designation" of His qualities in
the passage: 'That which is tranquil, ageless, fearless' (Praśna 5 7²)
and so on
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, it has been said that prakṛti and the individual soul are
not understood by the word 'Imperishable' which denotes Brahman.
Now it is being pointed out,—by means of this aphorism, as well as
by the text dealing with that topic,—that prakṛti (or the material
sphere) is rejectible, while the world of the Highest Self is acceptable,
and that the individual soul is the worshipper, one who is approaching
(a goal), while the Highest Self is the object to be worshipped and the
goal to be resorted to
We find the following text in the Praśna-upaniṣad of the Āthar-
vaṇas, introducing the topic of discussion thus: 'Verily, that, O
Satyakāma, which is the syllable "om", is the higher and the lower
Brahman. Hence a knower, through this very support, reaches one
of these two' (Praśna 5.2), and continuing: "Again, he who meditates
on the Highest Person with this very syllable 'om' of three elements
comes to the light in the sun. As a snake is freed from its skin, so,
verily, he is freed from sins. He is led by the Sāman verse to the
world of Brahman. He sees the Person, lying in the city, and higher
than the highest mass of souls" (Praśna 5 5) Here a doubt arises,
viz. whether "the object which one sees",—i e. the Reality which
one sees, in accordance with the declaration, viz. that through the
meditation on Him, the worshipper of the three elements, freed from
all sins, having come to the sun, and having been led by the Sāman
verses to the world of Brahman, sees that very Person, lying in the
City,—is the four-faced Brahmā, the presiding deity of all souls, and
indicated before as the 'lower Brahman'; or whether the object which
one sees is the Highest Person, denoted by the term 'Supreme Brah-
man', the cause of the whole world and the topic of Scripture. The
prima facie view is as follows: Let the four-faced Brahmā be the
¹ For the nature and constituent of a Brahmāṇḍa, vide V. R. M., pp. 32 et seq.
² R, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 13
ADH. 4] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 161
object which one sees. As ¹ it has been stated before that the wor-
shipper of the praṇava (= om) of one element and the worshipper
of the praṇava of two elements respectively attain the world of man
and the world of the ether as fruits, so the world of Hiraṇyagarbha,—
who represents the individual souls in their collective aspect,—higher
than the ether, should be understood as designated as the fruit belong-
ing to the worshipper (of the praṇava) of three elements. The object
of the perception of a person, who has come to that world, is he (the
four-faced) alone, the ruler of that world. It is quite appropriate to
hold that the person, residing in that world and representing the
individual souls in their collective aspect, is superior to those discrete
souls which are embodied beings, yet are superior to the body, the
sense-organs, etc. Hence the object which one sees is the four-faced
Brahmā.
On this suggestion, we reply: The Highest Self alone, the topic
of discussion and the cause of the world, is the object which one sees.
Why? "On account of designation", i.e. on account of the designation
of the qualities of the Highest Self, such as, 'being the object to be
attained by the wise', 'being tranquil', 'being ageless', 'being immor-
tal', 'being fearless' and the rest, mentioned in the passage: 'Through
this very syllable "om" as the support, a knower reaches that which
is tranquil, ageless, immortal, fearless, the supreme, the supreme
goal' ² (Praśna 5.7). 'A mass of souls' implies one who has connec-
tion with the body and the rest, generated by karmas; and that (viz.
connection with the body, etc.) is declared by Scripture to be pertaining
to the four-faced Brahmā too, in the passage: 'He who first creates
Brahmā' (Śvet. 6.18). Nor is the world of the four-faced Brahmā
higher than the ether, it being included among the heaven and the
rest. The world, mentioned in the passage: 'He sees the Person,
lying within the city' (Praśna 5.5), is not the world of Brahmā,—
otherwise called the 'world of truth' and an abode for the enjoyment
of the fruits of works, but is the world of Brahman,—who is the topic
of discussion and the object which one sees,—to be approached by
the freed, it being indicated as the sleeping-place of the Person, higher
than even the 'mass of souls' which itself is higher than all worlds.

¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason, in accordance with Pāṇ. 3.2.126,
SD. K. 3103.
² 'Parāyaṇam' not included under the original text.
11

162' VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 3. 13.
ADH. 4.]
This very world of the Supreme Brahman is declared as the object
to be attained by the wise by another Upaniṣad of the same Athar-
vanas, beginning "‘The place which all the Vedas record, that which
all the austerities declare, wishing what people practise chastity, that
place I tell you in brief’" (Kaṭha 2.15), and continuing ‘That is the
best support, that is the supreme support. By knowing that support,
one rejoices in the world of Brahman’ (Kaṭha 2.17). That very
Upaniṣad declares the unattainableness of this (world of Brahman)
by the non-knower, and its attainableness by the knower, as well as
its difference from mundane existence in the passages ‘But he who
has not understanding, who is inattentive, and ever impure, does not
reach that place, and goes to transmigratory existence. But he who
has understanding, who is attentive and ever pure, reaches that
place, whence he is not born again. A man, however, who has under-
standing as his charioteer, the mind as the rein, reaches the end of the
journey, that highest place of Viṣṇu’ (Kaṭha 3.7–9). In the Śānti-
parva, it is said in the beginning of the Hārita-gītā ‘Yudhiṣṭhira said:
"A man of what nature, of what conduct, of what knowledge,
of what resort, attains the place of Brahman, that is higher than
prakṛti and eternal?" Bhīṣma said. "He who is engaged in the
religious duties in connection with salvation, who is abstemious, who
has conquered the senses, attains the supreme place that is higher
than prakṛti and eternal"’ (Mahā. 12.9968-9969).¹ From such
question and answer by the wisest men, the superiority of the world
of Brahman—the object of enquiry—to prakṛti, its attainableness
only through the religious duties in connection with salvation, and its
eternity, are established. Hence, it is established that the object
which one sees is Brahman, lying in the city, and higher than prakṛti,
in its effected and in its causal conditions.
Here ends the section entitled ‘One sees’ (4).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation different, viz. according to him, the question is
whether the higher or the lower Brahman is meant here, and not
¹ P. 716, lines 22-23, vol 3.

[sū. 1. 3. 14.
ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 163
whether Brahman or Brahmā, the four-faced. The conclusion, of
course, is that the higher Brahman is meant.¹
Adhikaraṇa 5. The section entitled 'The small'.
(Sūtras 14–23)
SŪTRA 14
"THE SMALL (ETHER) IS BRAHMAN, ON ACCOUNT OF WHAT
FOLLOWS"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The "small" ether, mentioned in the passage: 'In this city of
Brahman is a small lotus, a chamber; small is the ether within it'
(Chānd. 8.1 1²), can be the Highest Self alone. Why? "On account
of what follows", i.e. on account of the peculiar qualities of the
Highest Self, which are designated subsequently in the passage: 'As
large is this ether, so large is that ether within the space. In it both
the heaven and the earth are contained. This soul is free from sins,
ageless' (Chānd. 8.1.3³) and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, on the ground of the text. 'He sees the Person lying in the
city' (Praśna 5.5), 'lying within the city', as well as 'being the object
which one sees', fit in on the part of the Highest Self as possessing
a manifest auspicious form. In the very same manner, smallness, too,
fits in on His part as residing in the abode, viz. the heart-lotus. With
this in his mind, the reverend author of the aphorisms says now:
We find the following text in the Chāndogya immediately after
the doctrine of the Plenty⁴. 'Now what is within this city of Brahman
is a small-lotus, a chamber; small is the ether within it. What is
within that should be searched for, that, verily, should be enquired
into' (Chānd 8.1.1). The meaning of the text, according to us,
is as follows. 'what is' within 'this city of Brahman',—i.e. within the
body which is the abode where the individual soul, a part of Brahman,
enjoys the fruit of its karmas and which is the place where it realizes
¹ S B. 1.3.13, p. 321 'Kim asmin vākye paraṁ Brahma abhidhātavyam
upadiśyata ahasvit aparam iti'.
² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ³ Op. cit. ⁴ V.K., 1.3.8.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 14
164 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
Brahman,—is a "small", i.e. a tiny 'lotus', viz the heart, well-known
from Scripture, that very thing is a chamber as it were. In that same
chamber, there is a "small", i e. a tiny, or one who has manifested
himself in a subtle form in accordance with the wish of his own devotees
who are devoted to none else, 'ether', i.e one who is pervasive by
nature. In that heart-lotus, the small Brahman who is denoted by
the term 'ether' 'should be searched for', i e. should be discriminated
as different from the enquirer, as well as from the body; and 'should
be enquired into', i.e. should be meditated on repeatedly through
the 'hearing' of the Vedānta.
Here a doubt arises, viz whether by the term 'small ether' the
elemental ether is to be understood, or the Highest Self. If it be
suggested: The elemental ether, because the term 'ether' is well-
known to denote the elemental ether, and because the term 'small'
too, as implying a subtle object, may be applied to it It cannot be
said that in the text: 'As large is this ether, so large is the ether within
the heart' (Chānd. 8.1.3), one and the same thing (viz. the ether)
cannot reasonably be both the object compared and the object (upa-
meya and upamāna) with which it is,—because it can appropriately
be so on the ground of the distinction of the external and the internal.¹
Or, let the embodied soul, like the point of a spoke only, be the small
ether, because it, too, is known from the passage: 'Now this serenity
(i.e. serene being) having arisen from this body' (Chānd. 8 3.4).
Being atomic by nature, it can be fittingly termed 'small', and, being
undefiled by the body, the sense-organs and the rest, it can be fittingly
compared to the ether ²—
We reply. "The small", i.e. the small ether, is none but the
Highest Self. Why? "On account of what follows", i.e. on account
of the reasons contained in the concluding text, 1.e. on account of the
peculiar qualities of the Highest Self, viz. 'being comparable to the
ether', 'being the support of all worlds, beginning with the earth',
'being the soul', 'being free from sins'—and the rest. Thus, in the
passage: 'As large is this ether, so large is that ether within the
¹ That is, as the external ether it is the upamāna, as the internal ether the
upameya Hence no contradiction is involved
² That is, as the ether remains aloof from the impurities of the world,
though connected with it, so the soul remains aloof from the impurities of the
body and the rest, though connected with them. Hence the latter may be
compared with the former.

[sū. 1. 3. 15.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 165
heart’ (Chānd. 8.1.3) the small ether, i.e. the Supreme Being alone,
is compared to the well-known ether, since when two different things
can be reasonably held to be the object with which the thing is com-
pared and the object compared, it is unreasonable to suppose one and
the same thing to be both (viz. upamāna and upameya). ‘Being the
supporter of all effects’ too, mentioned in the passage: ‘In it both
the heaven and the earth are contained’ (Chānd. 8.1.3), fits in on
the part of the Highest Self alone. The attributes like ‘being the
soul’, ‘being free from sins’ and the rest, mentioned in the passage:
‘This soul is free from sins, ageless, deathless, sorrowless, without
hunger, without thirst, possessed of true desires, possessed of true
resolves’ (Chānd. 8.1.5), fit in only if the Highest Self be understood.
Moreover, after having designated the non-permanency of the fruits of
works and their incapacity of knowing Him in the passage ‘As here
the world won by work perishes, so hereafter the world won by merit
perishes’ (Chānd. 8.1.6), Scripture concludes: ‘Now, those who
depart, having known the soul here and those true desires, come to
have free movement in all the worlds’ (Chānd. 8.1.6). That is, those
worshippers who ‘depart’ to the other world, ‘having known’, i.e.
having realized ‘the soul’, i.e. the Supreme Lord called ‘the small’,
and ‘those’, i.e. His qualities, come to have free movement in all the
worlds. Accordingly, the small ether is the Highest Self, since then
alone free movement is explicable on the part of those who know the
nature and qualities of the ‘small one’.
SŪTRA 15
“ON ACCOUNT OF GOING AND OF WORD, FOR THUS IT IS SEEN,
THERE IS A MARK AS WELL.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The “going” is mentioned in the text: ‘All beings are going day
by day’ (Chānd. 8.3.2 ¹), and the “word” is ‘The world of Brahman’
(Chānd. 8.3.2 ²),—on account of these two, the ‘small one’ is ascer-
tained to be the Supreme Being. The daily going is “seen thus”
in another scriptural text too, viz.: ‘“Then, my dear, he comes to be

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Op. cit.