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

[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.

[Sū. 1. 3. 26
180 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7 ]
"On account of possibility," i e because the worship and the like of
Brahman, leading to salvation which is characterized by the attainment
of Brahman and is preceded by the cessation of all retributive
experience due to their own works, is possible on their part as well.
Thus, although they have supermundane and celestial enjoyment, yet
since such an enjoyment is subject to the faults of non-permanency,
surpassability and the rest, its cessation, one day or other, is possible,
hence, a desire for salvation, too, is possible on their part, by reason
of their learning the unsurpassability, supreme blissfulness and perma-
nency of the attainment of the nature of Brahman; and finally through
this desire for salvation, a worship of Brahman, too, is possible on
their part ¹ there being proofs establishing their right to the worship
of Brahman, viz the texts: 'For one hundred and one years, forsooth
Indra dwelt with Prajāpati, practising chastity' (Chānd. 8 11.3),
'Verily, Bhṛgu, the son of Varuṇa, approached his father Varuṇa,
(with the request) "Sir, teach me Brahman "' (Tait. 3 1 1) and so
on. Similarly, corporality, too, is possible on their part in accordance
with text about the evolution of name and form,² as well as in accord-
ance with sacred formulæ, explanatory and glorificatory passages and
tradition ³ Thus it is declared by Scripture: 'When about to say
"vasat", he should meditate on that deity for whom the offering is
taken' (Ait. Br. 11.8 ⁴). Here, no meaning of the text being possible
unless the god referred to, be possessed of a body,⁵ the god must be
understood to have a body In tradition too, the sun, the moon,
Vasu and the rest are well-known to have bodies The sons of Kuntī
were born from gods like Dharma and the rest, possessed of bodies.⁶
¹ That is, just as in the case of a man, the non-permanency of the earthly
enjoyment leads him to seek for salvation, which yields a permanent fruit, and
that, again, leads him to worship the Lord as a means thereto, so exactly the
non-permanency of the heavenly enjoyment leads a god to seek for salvation,
which leads him to worship the Lord.
² Vide Chānd. 6.3.2-4. ³ Mantras, artha-vāda and itihāsa.
⁴ Ānandāśrama ed., p. 305.
These are mantra and artha-vāda.
⁵ Because, we cannot meditate on the deity, unless he possesses a body.
To meditate is to meditate on a certain definite form Cf. Śrī. B 1 3 25. 'Na
hi nirviśeṣa-devatā dhiyaṃ adhirohati.'
⁶ Kuntī, the wife of Pāṇḍu, had, with his approval, three sons, Yudhiṣṭhira,
Bhīma and Arjuna, by the three deities, Dharma, Vāyu and Indra respectively.
Vide Mahā. 1 4760 et seq. (chap. 123), pp. 174 et seq., vol. 1.

[sū. 1. 3. 27.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 181
In the Purāṇas, too, there is a multitude of legends of various kinds
about them, possessing bodies. The verses from those chapters are
not quoted here for fear of increasing the bulk of the book.
SŪTRA 27
“ IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (IF THE GODS BE POSSESSED OF BODIES)
A CONTRADICTION WITH REGARD TO WORKS (WILL RESULT),
(WE REPLY :) NO, BECAUSE OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE
ASSUMPTION OF MANY (BODIES BY THE GODS, ETC.) ”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected. Since the worship of Brahman is not possible
without a body, their corporality must surely be admitted But it
that be so, it will give rise to a “ contradiction with regard to works ”,—
(We reply :) “ no ” such objection can arise. Why? “ Because
of the observation of the assumption ” simultaneously of many bodies
even by one and the same deity.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected· Although the corporality of the gods, as of us,
is an inevitable conclusion, as the activities in connection with the
repeated practice of ‘hearing’, ‘thinking’ and ‘meditating’ are possible
only on the part of one who is endowed with a body, sense-organs and
mind, and as in that way alone it is possible for them to be the bene-
factors of sacrifices, through their actual presence, like sacrificing
priests and the rest,¹—yet if they be possessed of bodies, there will
be “ a contradiction with regard to works ”, viz. sacrifices and the
rest, since the simultaneous presence of one body (i.e. of one god)
in many sacrifices is impossible,²—
(We reply :) “ No ”. Why? “ Because of the observation of many
worships ” ³ “ Many ”, i.e. of various forms, “ worship ”, “ on account
¹ That is, if gods be possessed of bodies, then they may themselves be
present at sacrifices, like the priests, and conduce to their proper performance,
etc.
² That is, one and the same god is simultaneously invoked in many sacrifices,
but evidently, he cannot be simultaneously present in many places
³ The compound ‘aneka-pratipatter darśanāt’ is explained as follows.

[SŪ. 1. 3 27.
182 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.]
of the observation of that". Thus, just as one and the same
teacher is found to be saluted simultaneously by many saluting dis-
ciples, just as one and the same sun is found to be worshipped simul-
taneously by many worshipping men, so there is no inconsistency in
supposing that different sacrificers offer their own objects to one and
the same corporal deity who abides in his own place. Hence no
harm is done to sacrifices
Or else, there may be another construction of the phrase "aneka-
pratipatter darsanāt". If it be objected that there will be "a con-
tradiction with regard to works" in the stated way,—(we reply.)
"No" Why? "On account of the assumption of many", i.e. on
account of the assumption of many forms, or on account of the
attainment of many bodies, by one and the same person who is
perfected by Yoga Why? "Because of the observation" of it
in Scripture. Thus, in the Moksa-dharma,¹ a question being put
forth concerning the Sāṁkhya and the Yoga thus, " 'Reverend father,
it behoves you to tell me in particular about the Sāṁkhya and the
Yoga. Everything, O knower of sacred duties, is known to you,
O best among the Kurus"!' (Mahā. 12 11037 ²), the text, having
set forth an eulogy of the Sāṁkhya and the Yoga, goes on · ' "Those
who are endowed with the power of the Yoga and are self-controlled
and majestic, enter, O Pārtha, through Yoga into Prajāpatis, sages,
gods and the great elements. Neither Yama, nor the angry Antaka,³
nor the supremely mighty Mrtyu lords it, O king, over the Yoga of
unmeasured might A yogin, O mightiest of the Bhāratas, can, by
reason of attaining strength,⁴ create many bodies for himself, and
move about the world by them all By some he may attain (i e
enjoy) objects, by others, he may practise a severe penance, and he
may again contract them, as the sun does the multitude of its rays'
(Mahā. 12.11060–64 ⁵).
¹ Name of a section of the twelfth book of the Mahābhārata, from chap. 174
to the end
² P. 751, line 27, vol. 3.
³ Name of Yama, the god of Death.
⁴ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason.
⁵ P 755, lines 20-23, vol. 3.

[sū. 1. 3. 28
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 183
SŪTRA 28
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (A CONTRADICTION WILL RESULT) WITH
REGARD TO WORD, (WE REPLY :) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN
(OF EVERYTHING) FROM IT, ON ACCOUNT OF PERCEPTION (I.E.
SCRIPTURE) AND INFERENCE (I E SMṚTI).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that if the corporality of the gods be admitted,
a contradiction will result with regard to the Vedic words denoting
them, as these words will become meaningless prior to the origin of
the objects (viz. the gods) denoted by them and subsequent to their
destruction,—
(We reply:) No such contradiction results, “on account of the
origin” of the objects (viz. the gods and the rest) “from it”, i.e.
from the words alone, denoting eternal prototypes or forms, and
serving as reminders to the thought of Prajāpati, in accordance with
the following scriptural and Smṛti texts. ‘He evolved name and form
by means of the Veda’ (Tait. Br. 2.6 2 3 ¹), ‘A celestial word, without
beginning and end, eternal, and composed of the Vedas was emitted
by the self-born in the beginning, whence proceeded all activities’
(Mahā 12.8534 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Here, the word ‘contradiction’ is to be supplied from the preced-
ing aphorism. If it be objected. Very well, there may not be any
contradiction with regard to works if the gods be possessed of bodies,
still there may be contradiction “with regard to the words” denoting
gods and the rest, i e with regard to the Vedic forms. That is, on
account of the non-eternity of the bodies of the gods,—they being
due to karmas—as well as on account of the eternity of the Vedic
texts, the eternal relation between a word and its meaning will be
¹ P. 275, line 9, vol. 2. Reading ‘ . . . . rūpe . . . . ’.
R, ŚK.
² P. 666, line 22, vol. 3.
Ś, R, Bh.
Reading: ‘Anādi-nidhanā vidyā . .’ Vaṅgavāsī ed. reads: ‘Anādi-
nidhanā vidyā . . . Ādau deva-mayī vidyā .’ P. 1635, vol. 2.
Saṁkara, Rāmānuja and Bhāskara too read ‘Anādi-nidhanā nityā . . .’
like Nimbārka.

[SŪ. 1. 3 28.
184 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 7.]
impossible, and hence a contradiction will result between the object
which is limited in time and the word which is true for all times.
If it be said that owing to the force of the word, the object too is
eternal,—then a contradiction will result with regard to the texts
which prove its non-eternity. If it be said that for the sake of the
object, the word is non-eternal,—then there will arise a contradiction
with regard to the texts which prove its eternity —
(We reply·) “No”. There is no contradiction with regard to
the word as well. Why? “On account of the origin from it”, i e.
on account of the origin, or the rise, of the gods and the rest from this,
i e from the Vedic words, denoting the eternal prototypes of gods,
etc. and serving as a reminder to the thought of the creator regarding
the forms of gods, etc to be created at the time of each particular
creation. Thus, when a certain great personality, who has accumulated
a mass of merit and desires to become Prajāpati, comes to attain
lordship through the grace of the Lord, he is called ‘Prajāpati’. At
the time of creation when individuals like the former gods and the
rest are no more, Prajāpati, having learnt the Veda in a manner to
be designated hereafter,¹ and having apprehended, like a man arisen
from sleep,² the particular prototypes of the gods and the rest by
means of the lamp-like Veda, i.e from the Vedic words alone which
denote those particular prototypes, creates the later gods, etc in
accordance with those prototypes. Hence there is no room for the
alleged contradiction.
If it be objected, What proof is there that Prajāpati creates
objects after having known their particular forms from the Vedic
words?—we reply: “On account of perception and inference”. “Per-
ception” means Scripture, since it is independent of any other proof.
“Inference” means Smṛti, since it demonstrates the meaning of Scrip-
ture,—on account of these two, i.e. on account of Scripture and
Smṛti. First, the scriptural passage is the following; viz. ‘Prajāpati
evolved name ³ and form the existent and the non-existent, by means
of the Veda’ (Tait. Br. 2 6 2.3), likewise: ‘He uttered “bhūr”, he
¹ Vide Br. Sū. 1.3.30.
² That is, when a man arises from sleep at night he can see nothing until
he lights a lamp. Similarly, at the beginning of creation, the creator knows
particular objects from the lamp-like light of the Veda, i.e. knows the forms of
those objects and creates them anew accordingly.
³ The text omits ‘nāma’.

[SŪ. 1 3 28.
ADH 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 185
created the earth' (Tait. 2.2.4.2 ¹), 'He uttered "bhuva", he created
the ether' (Tait. Br. 2.2.4 2-3 ²) and so on. The Smṛti passage is
contained in the Mokṣadharma ³, and beginning: 'The sages read
the Vedas day and night by penance' (Mahā. 12.8533b ⁴), continues:
'A celestial word, without beginning and end, eternal and composed
of the Vedas, was omitted by the self-born in the beginning, whence
proceeded all activities.⁵ The Lord created the names of the sages
and the creations which are in the Vedas, as well as the various forms
of beings and the procedure of acts, from the Vedic words alone in
the beginning At the end of the night, the Unborn One bestowed
the names of sages and the creations which are in the Vedas to others
The things that are celebrated in the world, namely, difference of
names, austerity, work and sacrifice'.⁶
Similarly, there are other passages, viz 'In the beginning the
Supreme Lord created the names and forms of beings, as well as the
procedures of actions, from the Vedic word alone' ⁷ (V.P 1.5 62).
'In the beginning, he created the names and actions of all as separate,
as well as the different established orders,⁸ from the Vedic word
alone' (Manu 1 21 ⁹) and so on ¹⁰
¹ P 195, lines 7-8, vol. 2. ² Op cit, lines 9-10.
³ See footnote 1, p 182 ⁴ P. 663, line 22, vol. 3.
⁵ For correct quotation, see footnote 2, p. 183
⁶ P. 666, lines 23–26, vol. 3.
Reading. 'Nama rūpañ ca bhūtānāṃ karmaṇāñ ca pravartayan . . .
śarvaryy-ante sujātānām .'
Vaṅgavāsī ed reads. ' . pravartanam . . sujātānām'
P 1635, vol 2.
⁷ P. 50
Variant readings. 'Devādīnāṃ cakāra sah'.
⁸ Cf. Kullūka-bhaṭṭa's Commentary on the Manu-Smṛti (p. 10): 'Pṛthak-
saṃsthāś ca iti Laukikīś ca vyavasthāḥ, kulālasya ghaṭa-nirmāṇam, kuvindasya
paṭa-nirmānam ityādika-vibhāgena nirmītavān.'
⁹ P. 9.
¹⁰ The sum and substance of the argument is as follows: The prima facie
view is that if the gods be possessed of bodies, then, since these bodies, are non-
eternal, the gods must be so But the Vedic words which denote the gods are
eternal Hence there cannot be any eternal connection between the non-eternal
gods and the eternal Vedic words, i e. these Vedic words cannot denote gods and
the rest, and must be meaningless.
The answer to this objection is as follows: The individual gods are indeed
non-eternal, but this does not prove that the eternal Vedic words are meaningless,
for what they denote is not the individual (vyakti) which is non-eternal, but the