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

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.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 15.
166 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5 ]
united with the Existent"' (Chānd. 6 8.1 ¹) If the karmadhāraya
compound be understood,² then Brahman alone is 'the mark', i.e.
the primary meaning of the word ('Brahma-loka') "as well".
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason too, says the author, the small ether is the Highest
Self.
The subsequent reasons are being amplified now. In the text
about the small-ether, viz : 'Just as those who do not know the place
move again and again over a hidden treasure of gold, but do not find
it, so these beings are going day by day to that world of Brahman
but do not find it, for they are carried away by untruth' (Chānd.
8.3.2), the phrase 'are going day by day' states the "going": and the
"word" is: 'this world of Brahman', (Brahma-loka)—on account of
these two, it is known that the small ether is the Highest Self. The
sense is that because of the going of the individual souls, indicated
by the term 'beings', to Brahman daily during deep sleep when all
the sense-organs are dissolved; and because of the word 'world of
Brahman', the small ether is ascertained to be none but the Highest
Self, as the individual soul is one who approaches (and hence cannot be
the goal approached), and as going is not appropriate on the part of the
elemental ether. "For thus it is seen", i.e. the going of all beings to
the Highest Self alone day by day during the state of deep sleep, as
well as their return therefrom, are found, in the very same manner, in
other passages too, viz.. "'So exactly, my dear, all these beings, being
united with the Existent, do not know, we have become united with
the Existent"' (Chānd. 6 9.2), "'Having come back from the Exis-
tent, they do not know: We have come back from the Existent'"
(Chānd. 6.10.1). In the very same manner, the term 'world of Brah-
man', too, is found applied to the Highest Self, as in the passage:
"'This is the world of Brahman, O king," said he' (Bṛh. 4 3.32)
The phrase 'that' (Chānd. 8.3 2) indicates the going of all beings
there (viz. to Brahman). That is, the term 'world of Brahma'
(Brahma-loka),—stated to be in apposition with the word 'that'
which denotes the 'small one', and explained as a karmadhāraya
compound thus: 'the world which is Brahman',—is "a mark", i.e.
a convincing proof, that the small ether is the Highest Brahman.

¹ Op. cit. ² See below V.K.

[SŪ. 1 3. 16
ADH 5 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 167
SŪTRA 16
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPORTING (THE LORD IS THE SMALL
ETHER), BECAUSE THIS GREATNESS IS OBSERVED IN HIM (FROM
ANOTHER SCRIPTURAL PASSAGE)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The holding apart, mentioned in the passage 'He is the bridge,
a limitary support of these worlds' (Chānd 8.4.1 ¹), fits in if the small
ether be the Highest Self, because "this greatness is observed" "in
him', i e. in the Highest Self alone who is called 'a support' ² on the
authority of another scriptural passage, viz : 'At the command of this
Imperishable, Gārgī, the sun and the moon stand, held apart' (Bṛh
3 8.9 ³)
Vedānta-kaustubha
On account of the following reason, viz. • "On account of support-
ing", by the word 'small ether', the Highest Self alone is to be under-
stood here. Compare 'Now, he who is the soul is the bridge, a
limitary support for keeping these worlds apart' (Chānd 8.4.1)
The sense is: (The soul is) 'a bridge',—or, the cause of the non-inter-
mixture,—and a 'limitary support',—or that which separates,—'for
keeping apart'—i e for preventing the intermixture or splitting
asunder 'of these worlds', or of the worlds separated from one another
as relating to the soul (i e. internal), and as relating to the gods
(i e external) The sense is that as "this greatness", viz. supporting,
"is observed" in the Highest Self in another scriptural passage, so
here, too, the small ether, the limitary support of all the worlds, is
known to be the Highest Self. The other scriptural passage is to the
effect . 'At the command of this Imperishable, Gārgī, the sun and the
moon stand held apart' (Bṛh. 3.8.9). Similarly, there is a passage :
'He is the Lord of all, he is the Lord of the worlds, he is the bridge,
the limitary support for keeping these worlds apart' (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ⁴).
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B
² CSS. ed. slightly different, p. 14, viz . 'Asya ca mahimno dhṛtyā-
khyasya . . .'
³ Ś, R, Bh.
⁴ Correct quotation: 'Esa sarveśvara esa bhūtādhipatir esa bhūta-pālaḥ esa
setuḥ . . .' Vide Bṛh. 4.4.22, p. 246.

[SŪ. 1 3. 17.
168 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 5.]
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva
This is sūtra 15 in the commentaries of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Resulting meaning same, although the meaning of words different,
viz.: ‘asya’ means ‘of the Lord’ and ‘asmin’ means in the small
ether. Hence the sūtra ‘Because supporting, which is a greatness
of him (viz the Lord), is observed in it (viz. in the small ether)’ ¹
SŪTRA 17
“AND BECAUSE IT IS WELL-KNOWN.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And because the word ‘ether’ is well-known to be denoting the
Highest Self as well,—as in the passages: ‘The ether, verily, is the
revealer of name and form’ (Chānd 8 14.1 ²), ‘All these beings,
forsooth, arise from the ether alone’ (Chānd. 1.9 1 ³),—the small ether
is none but the Highest Self
Vedānta-kaustubha
Again, the small ether should be understood to be none but the
Highest Self Why? Because the word ‘ether’ is well-known to be
denoting the Highest Self as well. Where? In the passages: ‘The
ether, verily, is the revealer of name and form’ (Chānd. 8 14.1),
‘All these beings, forsooth, arise from the ether alone’ (Chānd 1.9.1).
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different, viz. : ‘Because (the Lord) is celebrated
(in other Upaniṣads, viz. Mahopaniṣad, Kaivalya-upaniṣad and the
rest), to be an object to be worshipped as abiding in the small lotus,
(the small ether is the Lord)’ ⁴.
¹ Śrī. B. 1.3.15, pp. 308-9, Part 1
ŚK. B. 1.3 15, pp 437-8, Part 5; B.B. 1 3.16
² Ś. ³ Ś, R, Bh.
⁴ ŚK., 1.3 16, p 438, Part 5.

[sū. 1. 3. 18-19.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 169
SŪTRA 18
"IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF A REFERENCE TO THE
OTHER, (VIZ. THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL), HE (IS THE SMALL ETHER),
(WE REPLY:) NO, BECAUSE OF IMPOSSIBILITY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that "on account of a reference" to the individual
soul as well in the middle of the text about the 'small one', viz. in the
passage: 'This serene being having arisen from this body, having
attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form. This
is the soul, said he' (Chānd. 8.3 4¹), let the individual soul be the
'small one',—
(We reply) 'no', "because of the impossibility" of the qualities
of freedom from sins and the rest,² on the part of the individual soul
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected that "on account of a reference" to the individual
soul by the term 'serene being' in the middle of the text about the
small ether, viz. in the passage: 'This serene being, having arisen
from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed
in its own form. This is the soul, said he. This is immortal, fearless'
(Chānd 8.3.4), let "him" alone be the small ether,—
(We reply·) 'No'. Why? "Because of impossibility", i.e. because
the above-mentioned qualities of freedom from sins and the rest are
impossible on the part of the individual soul.
SŪTRA 19
"IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT FROM WHAT IS SUBSEQUENT, (THE
INDIVIDUAL SOUL MAY BE MEANT HERE), (WE REPLY·) BUT (THAT
SUBSEQUENT PASSAGE REFERS TO THE SOUL SO FAR ONLY) IT HAS
ITS REAL NATURE MANIFEST."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that "from what is subsequent", i.e. from
Prajāpati's statement referring to the individual soul, the eight-fold
¹ S, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Vide Chānd 8.1 5.

[Sū. 1. 3. 19.
170 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
qualties of freedom from sins and the rest are known to belong to
the individual soul as well, hence let it alone be the small ether,—
We reply: The Highest Self, endowed with the above-mentioned
qualities and having His real nature ever manifest, is the ‘small one’;
but not the individual soul, having its real nature manifest,¹ (not
always, but only during release)
Vedānta-kaustubha
Here the word ‘small’ is to be supplied from the main aphorism,²
and the words ‘he, no’ from the preceding one.³ If it be objected:
This is impossible. “From what is subsequent” to the doctrine of
the ‘small’, i.e. from the statement of Prajāpati, the individual soul
should be known as endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins
and the rest. Hence, here too let it alone be the ‘small one’, endowed
with the qualities of freedom from sins and the rest,—
(We reply) “No”. There, viz. in the passage: ‘Having attained
the form of Highest light, it is completed in its own form’ (Chānd.
8.3.4), the individual soul which has its real nature manifest, is
intended to be designated. The word “but” (in the sūtra) clearly
indicates the great difference between that which has its real nature
manifest and the ‘small one’ the real nature of which is ever unveiled
and which is ever beyond the conventional distinctions of bondage
and release. Thus the statement of Prajāpati (Chānd 8.7 1) teaches
the individual soul as possessing the attributes of freedom from sins
and the rest,—the soul which has its real attributes concealed by the
states of waking and the rest, rooted on karmas, meritorious or non-
meritorious, and existent from all eternity; and which has its real
nature manifest through the attainment of the Highest Self, caused
by meditation on Him. But the text about the ‘small one’ (Chānd.
8.1.5) teaches the Highest Self as possessing the attributes of freedom
from sins and the rest,—the Self who has His nature and attributes
ever manifest, and who is denoted by the term ‘small ether’.³
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ The contrast is between the nityāvirbhūta-svarūpa Paramātman and the
āvirbhūta-svarūpa jīvātman. See V. K. below.
² Viz. Br. Sū. 1.3.14 ³ Viz. Br. Sū. 1.3.18
³ That is, the Highest Self is always possessed of the attributes of freedom
from sins and the rest, while the individual soul is not always possessed of them,
but only when its real nature comes to be manifested. Hence the ‘small one’,
which is always possessed of these attributes cannot be the individual soul.

{SŪ. 1. 3. 19.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 171
The meaning of the scriptural text (Chānd. 8 3.4) is as follows.
Just as the eye,—enveloped in deep darkness and hence unable to
perform its own special function of making known objects like clothes,
ornaments and the rest,—having attained the ever-unenveloped sun,
is completed in its own form and able to perform its own special
function of manifesting its own objects,—so the individual soul,
‘having attained’, i.e having completely attained, near itself, the
‘highest’, i.e. the Being different from the sentient individual soul
and the non-sentient, ‘light’, i e. the real nature of the Whole the
revealer of all, is ‘completed’ in its real nature as knowledge, different
from the body, the sense-organs and the rest and endowed with its
own bliss,—as such it is said to have its real nature manifest (āvir-
bhūta-svarūpa) The word ‘āvirbhūta-svarūpa’ is to be explained
as ‘one whose real nature has become manifest’. Moreover, as ‘being
a bridge’, ‘being the limitary support of all worlds’, and ‘being the
controller of the sentient and the non-sentient’ are not possible even
on the part of the individual soul which has its real nature manifest,
so the small ether can never be supposed to be the individual soul.
In the doctrine of the ‘small’ (Chānd 8.1 5), the attributes of freedom
from sins and the rest, which are special to one who has this real
nature ever manifest, are mentioned; while in the doctrine taught by
Prajāpati (Chānd. 8 7.1), only those that are special to that which
has its nature manifest (and not ever manifest) Hence, the reason
‘because of impossibility’ (mentioned in Br. Sū. 1 3 18) remains in
force.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
Interpretation different, viz.: ‘If it be said . . . , (then
we reply) No, but (the passage in question refers to the soul only so
far) as its real nature has become manifest (i.e. so far it has become
Brahman) ¹ Thus, according to Śaṃkara, the statement of Prajāpati
(Chānd. 8 7.1) does not really refer to the individual soul, but to
Brahman. According to Nimbārka, however, as we have seen, it
refers to the freed soul, which too is different from Brahman
¹ Ś.B. 1 3.19, pp. 333 et seq.

[sū 1. 3. 20.
172 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5 ]
Bhāskara
He, too, points out that the statement of Prajāpati does not refer
to the individual soul as such, but to the soul which has become the
Supreme Soul in nature ¹
SŪTRA 20
“AND THE REFERENCE HAS A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“The reference” to the individual soul is for showing that the
Supreme Soul is the cause of the manifestation of the real nature of
the individual soul.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz : If the small ether be the Supreme Soul
having His real nature ever-manifest, then the reference to the indivi-
dual soul in the text about the ‘small one’, viz. in the passage: ‘Now,
this serene being, having arisen from this body’ (Chānd 8.3.4),
must have a purport,—the author replies here.
The word “and” (in the sūtra) implies possibility. Just as on
attaining the sun, the eye, overpowered so long by darkness, is com-
pleted in its real form, so on attaining the highest light, i.e. the small
ether, the individual soul, having so long its real nature and qualities
like freedom from sins and the rest hidden by the beginningless māyā, is
completed in its own special form. Thus, the reference to the individual
soul in the statement of Prajāpati is simply for showing that the small
ether is the cause of the manifestation of the real form of the individual
soul, and not for proving that the small ether is the individual soul
itself.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz. . ‘And the reference (to the individual
soul) has a different purpose (viz. the determining of the nature of
Brahman)’ ². According to Nimbārka, however, as we have seen,
¹ Bh B. 1 3 19, p 58.
² Ś.B 1.3 20, p. 339; Bh B 1.3.20, p 58

[SŪ 1 3. 21-22.
ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 173
the purpose is to show that Brahman is the cause of the manifestation
of the real nature of the soul.
SŪTRA 21
"IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL
DECLARATION OF WHAT IS SMALL (THE LORD IS NOT THE SMALL
ETHER), (WE REPLY,) THAT HAS BEEN SAID."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"If it be objected that on account of the scriptural declaration
of what is small", the all-pervasive Being cannot be understood here,—
(we reply·) the answer to this has already been given ¹
Vedānta-kaustubha
"If it be objected that on account of the scriptural declaration
of what is small" in the passage: 'Small is the ether within it' (Chānd.
8 1.1), let the individual soul alone, which is atomic in size, be the
'small one',—
(We reply·) The answer to this has been given under the aphorism
'Because (Brahman) is to be conceived thus, as in the case of the
ether' (Br Sū. 1.2.7).
SŪTRA 22
"AND BECAUSE OF THE IMITATION OF THAT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"And because of the imitation" "of that", i.e of that which
has its real nature ever manifest, in accordance with the passage.
'He alone shining, everything shines' (Kaṭha 5.15; Muṇḍ. 2.2.10 ;
Śvet. 6.14 ²), the individual soul, the imitator, cannot be the 'small
one', having its real nature ever-manifest.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author says that for this reason, too, the individual soul is
not the small ether.
¹ Vide Br. Sū. 1.2.7. ² Ś, Bh.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 23.
174 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
Because of the imitation “of that”, i.e. of the small ether having
the eight-fold attributes ever manifest, by that which has its attributes
of freedom from sins and the rest manifest (and not ever manifest)
the ‘small one’ is none but the Highest Self Just as in the Muṇḍaka,
declaring the imitation of the Lord by all in the passage: ‘He alone
shining, everything shines’ (Muṇḍ 2.2.10); and declaring further
that everything is to be manifested by the Lord in the passage
‘Through his light all this shines’ (Muṇḍ 2.2.10), all things which
are imitators and objects to be manifested cannot be the object which
is imitated and the object which manifests,—so the individual soul,
mentioned by Prajāpati, and an imitator, cannot be Brahman, denoted
by the term ‘small’, and object to be imitated.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz. according to them, the sūtras 22-23
form a new adhikaraṇa, designating that the passage Muṇḍaka 2 2.10
refers not to a luminous substance, but to the Supreme Soul.¹ But
according to Nimbārka, they form parts of the preceding adhikaraṇa,
setting forth additional arguments as to why the ‘small ether’ is none
but the Supreme Soul.
Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva
According to all, the word ‘anukṛteḥ’ means ‘because of simi-
larity’. That is, the individual soul is not the ‘small one’ or Brahman,
because it is only similar to Him.²
SŪTRA 23
“MOREOVER (THIS IS) DECLARED BY SMṚTI.” ³
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Also Smṛti declares. ‘They have come to attain equality of
attributes with me’ (Gītā 14.2 ⁴).
¹ Ś.B. 1.3.22, pp. 340 ff., Bh B. 1.3.22, pp 58 et seq.
² Śrī. B. 1.3.21, p. 313, Part 1, ‘Tad-anukāras tat-sāmyam’.
ŚK. B. 1.3.21, pp. 444-5, Part 5, G B 1.3.22
³ C.S S. ed., p 15, reads ‘Api smaryyate’ 4 R, B.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 24.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 175
Vedānta-kaustubha
Smṛti declares the equality of the individual soul, freed from all
bondage, with the Supreme Soul, in the passage: 'They have come
to attain equality of attributes with me' (Gītā 14 2). Hence, it is
established that the small ether is none but the Supreme Soul.
Here ends the section entitled 'The small' (5)
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Reading different, viz. 'Api ca smaryyate' Interpretation
different, viz—'Further, Smṛti (viz. Gītā 15 12, etc.) declares (the
Soul to be the cause of the manifestation of all)' ¹
Rāmānuja and Baladeva
Reading 'Api smaryyate'. ²
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading 'Api ca smaryyate', i.e. 'Moreover Smṛti declares
(that the Lord is to be meditated on as abiding in the heart-lotus ³)'.
Adhikaraṇa 6. The section entitled 'What is
measured'. (Sūtras 24-25)
SŪTRA 24
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEXT ONLY, WHAT IS MEASURED (IS THE
LORD)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"What is measured", i e what is of the size of a thumb, is none
but the Highest Person, "on account of the text": 'The Lord of past
and future' (Kaṭha 4.13 ⁴).
¹ Ś, B 1.3.23, p. 343; Bh B. 1 3.23, p. 59.
² Śrī. B. 1.3.23, p. 313, Part 1, G.B. 1 3 23.
³ ŚK B 1.3 23, p 445, Part 5
⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B

[SŪ. 1. 3. 24.
176 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, it has been establshed that Brahman is to be meditated
on as the 'small one' Now, the author points out that Brahman
is to be meditated on as of the size of merely a thumb.
In the Katha-valli, we read: 'The Person, of the size of merely
a thumb, dwells in the midst of the soul' (Katha 4.12), again 'The
Person, of the size of merely a thumb, smokeless like light' (Katha
4.13); again: 'The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, the inner
soul, is ever seated in the heart of beings' (Katha 6.17) Here, a
doubt arises as to whether the Person of the size of merely a thumb
is the individual soul or the Highest Person The prima facie view
is as follows The Person of the size of merely a thumb is the individual
soul in accordance with the Śvetāśvatara-text, viz. 'The lord of the
vital-breaths, who is of the size of merely a thumb and of a form like the
sun, moves about through his own works' (Śvet. 5 7d–8a); as well as
in accordance with the Smṛti passage, viz . 'Then Yama drew forth,
by force, from the body of Satyavāna, the person, of the size of merely
a thumb, tied to the noose and brought under his control' (Mahā.
3.16763 ¹).
With regard to this, we reply "What is measured", i.e. the
Person of the size of merely a thumb, mentioned in the Kaṭha-valli,
is none but the Supreme Soul. Why? "On account of the text",
i.e. on account of the text 'The lord of past and future' (Katha
4.13). The sense is this. Although 'being of the size of merely a
thumb', mentioned in the above Scripture and Smṛti texts, is here
perceived to be a characteristic mark of the individual soul, yet that
mark is set aside,²—this is the sense.
If it be objected: It being impossible for the individual soul,
which is by nature atomic in size, to be of the size of a thumb, and
there being the mark: 'tied to the noose', the individual soul can be of
the size of merely a thumb only if its subtle body be meant.³ But it

¹ P. 806, line 5, vol. 1.
² That is, although in the above scriptural and Smṛti texts, the individual
soul has been designated as of the size of a thumb, yet in other numerous passages,
it is designated as of the size of an atom merely Hence, the above description
is set aside.
³ That is, since the individual soul cannot be of the size of a thumb, being
declared to be atomic in size, the designation of it as of the size of a thumb merely
means that its subtle body is so, and not that it itself is so.

[SŪ 1. 3. 25.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 177
is impossible for Brahman, the topic of discussion, to be of the size of
merely a thumb, even though repeatedly taught by Scripture,—
(We reply·) No, it being possible for Brahman to be so, in accord-
ance with the wish of His devotees, and on account of His connection
with place (viz. the heart) With regard to this point, a preceding
aphorism (viz Br. Sū 1.2.7) may be consulted. Moreover, on account
also of a text referring to the Person of the size of merely a thumb,
viz. : ‘Let one draw him forth from his own body with firmness, as a
pith from a reed Let one know him’ (Kaṭha 6 17), the Supreme
Soul alone is of the size of merely a thumb. Thus, the meaning of
the text is as follows The individual soul, entitled to know Brahman,
the agent, endowed with a right discrimination between the soul and
the non-soul,—implied by the phrase ‘from his own body’,—‘should
draw forth’, i.e. should lift up or put outside,—through intense
prayer again,—‘him’, ie the Person of the size of a thumb, the
object and known first through meditation to be within the heart,
‘from his own body’, i e from the body known as his own, ‘as the
pith from a reed’; then ‘he should know him with firmness’. If this
be so, the Person of the size of merely a thumb, the object to be
worshipped, must be other than the worshipper himself
SŪTRA 25
“BUT (THE LORD IS SAID TO BE OF THE SIZE OF MERELY A THUMB)
IN REFERENCE TO THE HEART (OF MEN), BECAUSE MEN (ALONE)
ARE ENTITLED (TO SCRIPTURE)”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The Lord can very well be of the size of merely a thumb, “in
reference to the heart” of the worshippers. To the objection, viz
The size of the heart in animals being not fixed, how can Brahman
be of the size of a thumb in reference to the heart !—the author
replies : “Because men (alone) are entitled (to Scripture)”.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author is justifying the contention that Brahman can be
of the size of merely a thumb.
12

[sū. 1. 3. 25.
178 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6 ]
Even an all-pervasive Being can be of the size of merely a thumb,
"with reference to the heart", i.e. with reference to the heart, or
the heart-lotus which is of the size of merely a thumb, of His own
devotees, devoted to Him alone and to none else. The sense is that
this designation is indeed proper like the designation of the Lord as
'one who makes three strides' (Trivikrama), in reference to the three
worlds.¹
Or else, (an alternative explanation of the word "hṛdyapekṣa-
yā").
As from the word "heart" ("hṛd") alone the size of that which
is within it (viz the Lord) is known, the words "in reference to"
("apekṣayā") are to be understood as: 'in reference to the
worshippers', i.e in accordance with their wish.²
To the objection, viz. As the size of the heart differs in accordance
with the difference of living creatures, the text about (the Person of
the size of merely) a thumb cannot be explained in reference to the
heart,—we reply: "Because men (alone) are entitled" to Scripture.
This is the meaning:³ 'That to which men are entitled' (make
'manuṣyādhikāra'), 'the state of that' (make 'manuṣyādhikāratva'),
on account of that (make 'manuṣyādhikāratvāt'). The meaning of the
scriptural text concerning (the Person of the size of merely) a thumb
is explicable in reference to the heart of men. Although Scripture
is of a universal application,⁴ yet as men alone can be worshippers
and seekers, they alone are entitled to it. Hence, no contradiction
arises here even if the hearts of elephants and lice be not of the size
of merely a thumb, as they are not entitled to works enjoined in Scrip-
ture and Smṛti, as established in the sixth chapter, determining the
conditions of being entitled to sacrifices and so on.⁵ Thus, it is
¹ 'Trivikrama' is an epithet of Viṣṇu, who paced the three worlds in three
steps in His Vāmana or Dwarf incarnation. The sense is, that just as the all-
pervading Lord is said to have three strides only, so He may be said to be of the
size of a thumb only.
² I.e. the Lord manifests Himself as of the size of a thumb to please his
devotees.
³ The compound 'manuṣyādhikāratvāt' is to be explained as follows.
⁴ That is, scriptural mandates are to be followed by all
⁵ Vide Pū. Mī. Sū. 6.1.4-5, pp 504-7, Part 1.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 26.
ADH 7 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 179
established that the Supreme Soul alone is the Person of the size of
merely a thumb.
Here ends the section entitled 'What is measured' ¹ (3).
Adhikaraṇa 7. The section entitled 'The deity'.
(Sūtras 26-30)
SŪTRA 26
"EVEN THOSE WHO ARE ABOVE THEM (I.E. MEN) (ARE ENTITLED
TO THE WORSHIP OF BRAHMAN), (SO) BĀDARĀYAṆA (HOLDS),
BECAUSE OF POSSIBILITY "
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The gods and the rest also, who are above men, are entitled to
such a worship of Brahman,—so thinks the reverend " Bādarāyaṇa."
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been said in the last section that the text about the Person
of the size of merely a thumb is explicable in reference to the heart
of men, as men are entitled to Scripture. Now, incidentally, the
question as to whether or not gods too are entitled to the worship of
Brahman is being considered.
In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, we read 'Whoever among the gods was
awakened to this, he alone became that, likewise among the sages'
(Bṛh 1.4 10). (The sense is.) Whoever among the gods, and similarly
among the sages 'was awakened', i.e. directly perceived Brahman,
'he alone' attained the nature of Brahman. Here, on the doubt,
viz. whether or not the gods are entitled to the worship of Brahman,
which is a means to attaining His nature, if the suggestion be: As
men are entitled to Scripture; and as Indra and the rest are incapable
of practising meditation,—seeing that they, whose bodies consist of
sacred texts, are not possessed of physical bodies,²—the worship of
Brahman is not possible on the part of the gods,—we reply· Such a
worship of Brahman is possible on the part of gods as well, who are
"above" men,—so the reverend "Bādarāyaṇa" thinks Why?
1 The section entitled 'What is measured' is resumed in sūtra 1.3.40.
2 That is, in order that one might carry on meditation, one must have a
physical body, which a god lacks. Hence a god cannot practise meditation.