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

[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

[SŪ. 1. 3. 29.
186 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.]
SŪTRA 29
"FOR THIS VERY REASON, THE ETERNITY (OF THE VEDAS FOLLOWS)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The creation by Prajāpati is preceded by the (Vedic) word.
"For this" reason the "eternity" of the Veda is established.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Having apprehended the objection, viz. In spite of the eternity
of the Veda,—it not being mentioned as something created,—the
Vedic words, denoting the forms of gods and the rest, are concerned
with non-eternal objects, and having removed the consequent false
notion regarding the non-eternity of these as well,¹ the author is
confirming, incidentally, the eternity of the Veda.
"The eternity" of the word, i.e. of the Veda, follows "for this
very reason", i.e. also because of its priority to the creation by Pra-
jāpati. Words like 'Vaiśvāmitra', 'Kāṭhaka' and so on etymologically
mean simply what has been uttered by them. Thus 'what has been
said by Viśvāmitra is Vaiśvāmitra', 'what has been said by Kaṭha
is Kāṭhaka', and so on. At the end of the universal dissolution,
Prajāpati, having conceived the forms, powers and the rest of Viśvā-
mitra and others from the Vedic words 'Viśvāmitra', etc. mentioned
in texts like 'He chooses the maker of sacred formula', 'This is a
hymn of Viśvāmitra' (Tait. Sam. 5.2.3.2) and so on, and having
created them as endowed with those particular forms and those parti-
cular powers, appoints them to the task of revealing those particular
sacred formulæ (mantras).
Thus given the powers by him, they too, having practised suitable
penances, read the sacred formulæ,—which form portions of the Veda,
which are eternally existent, and which were revealed by Viśvāmitra
and others of former ages,—perfect in their sounds and accents without
having read them or learnt them from the recitation of a teacher.
type (ākṛti) which is eternal. It is in accordance with these eternal types,
denoted by the eternal Vedic words, that the non-eternal individuals are created
anew at the beginning of each creation.
¹ That is, since the Vedic words denote non-eternal objects, it might be
thought that these words themselves are non-eternal.
² P. 24, lines 21-22, vol. 2.

[sū 1 3. 30.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 187
As such, though they are makers of the sacred formulæ, the eternity
of the Veda is perfectly justifiable 1
SŪTRA 30
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF HAVING THE SAME NAME AND FORM,
(THERE IS) NO CONTRADICTION EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE
RECURRENCE (OF THE WORLD), ON ACCOUNT OF PERCEPTION (I E.
SCRIPTURE) AND ON ACCOUNT OF SMRTI."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Thus, there is "no contradiction even with regard to the recur-
rence", or the creation and destruction of the material world. Why?
Because the objects which are to be created in the beginning of each
age have the same names and forms as those in the past ages, "on
account of perception" (i.e. scriptural text), viz 'The creator fashioned
the sun and the moon as he did before' (Rg. V. 10 190 3 2), and 'on
account of Smrti', viz. 'Just as the various signs of the seasons are
seen to be the very same in their regular recurrence, so are the beings
in the successive ages' (V P. 1 5 64 3).
1 That is, the Vedic mantras are said to be composed by different sages like
Viśvāmitra and so on; and hence it may be thought that these sages being
non-eternal, the mantras composed by them must also be so, i.e the Veda
must be non-eternal. But the fact is that the sages are not really the composers
of the mantras, which are really eternal; but when they are said to be the composers
of those mantras, it is simply meant that they utter, i.e. reveal the eternally
existent mantra in different ages. Thus, e g Viśvāmitra in one particular age
utters a mantra which is then said to be Vaiśvāmitra. Then, in course of time,
Viśvāmitra perishes, but the mantra remains intact, and in the next age, a new
Viśvāmitra is deputed to utter and reveal the very same mantra and so on. Thus,
the mantra itself remains unchanged from all eternity, only its revealers change
from age to age Hence the Vedic mantras are really eternal and so is the Veda.
2 Pp. 143-4
Ś, Bh. ŚK, B.
3 P 50
Ś, Bh Cf. a very similar passage in Mahā 12 8550, p. 667, lines 9-10,
vol. 3, which is the same as the above passage, only reads 'Tathā Brahma-
harādīsu' in place of 'Tathā bhāvā yugādisu'.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 30.
188 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz : The view that Prajāpati, having known
the particular forms of object by means of the Veda,—in accordance
with the maxim of a person arisen from sleep,—¹ creates them as he
did before, fits in the case of the periodical dissolution.² But since
in the case of the total dissolution ³ there is destruction of everything,
how can the priority of the Veda to creation be possible ? How can
also its eternity be possible ? How can again the world be preceded by
it ? The author replies here :
The word "and" (in the sūtra) is meant for removing the doubt.
The word "even" implies possibility. That is to say, there is no
contradiction whatsoever "even with regard to the recurrence"
consisting in a continuous stream of creation and dissolution of the
material world, i.e. with regard to the first creation at the end a
great dissolution. Why ? "On account of having the same name and
form." Thus, during the total dissolution, the Lord Vāsudeva, the
one mass of a multitude of attributes which are special to Him, eternal,
infinite and natural, and possessing the sentient and the non-sentient
as His powers, having drawn in all the effects, consisting in His own
powers (śakti) of the sentient and the non-sentient, as a tortoise draws
in its limbs, and having placed them in Himself in a successive order,
opposed to that of creation, abides in silence, like a boy who has
gathered up his toys. At that time, the Vedas, the objects denoted by
them, as well as the forms of the latter, exist in Him, all blended
together with Him. Thus, the entire Universe always exists in
its cause, viz. Vāsudeva or Brahman, possessing the sentient and the
non-sentient as His powers. There is no such thing as absolute
destruction, in accordance with the scriptural text : " 'The existent
alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second ' "
((Chānd. 6.2.1). That is, 'My child !' 'this', i.e. the Universe, 'was
existent alone', i.e. was non-different from its cause, 'in the beginning',
¹ See footnote 2, p. 184.
² Naimittika-pralaya.
³ Prākṛta-pralaya.
Naimittika pralaya means the dissolution of the three worlds when one day
of the Kāryya-brahman or Hiraṇyagarbha comes to an end; while prākṛta pralaya
means the dissolution of all objects together with the Kāryya-brahman himself.
Vide Ved. Pari, 7th chap. for the four kinds of pralayas: nitya, naimittika,
prākṛta and ātyantika.

[sū. 1 3. 30
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 189
i.e prior to creation; and that, viz. the cause, denoted by the term
‘existent’, is ‘one only, without a second’. He is without an equal
or a superior, indicated respectively by the words ‘only’ and ‘without
a second’, and He is to be known also as manifold by nature indeed,
since He is the substratum of the sentient and the non-sentient which
are His powers. Dissolution means the existence of the effect in the
cause in a subtle form; while creation means simply the manifestation
of such an effect. At the end of dissolution, the omniscient and all-
knowing Lord, having wished first ‘“May I be many”’ ((Chānd.
6.2.3, Tait. 2.6.1); having then separated the mass of enjoying souls
and the objects of enjoyment, so long merged in Him as His subtle
powers; having created all objects from the mahat down to the four-
faced Brahmā as He did before, having manifested the eternally
existent Vedas, having taught them mentally to Brahmā, and having
deputed him to the creation of the Universe, consisting of gods, men
and the rest, as it was before, Himself exists as his (Brahmā's) inner
soul, as declared by the text ‘Having created it, he entered into that
very thing’ (Tait. 2 6 1). Brahmā too, who has attained lordship
through His grace, having apprehended their forms from the Vedic
words, creates gods and the rest. As such, there is no contradiction
even with regard to the recurrence,—this is the sense. Just in this
consists the non-human origin of the Veda, it having an eternally
existent form like the Supreme Brahman. And its eternity means that
one, having remembered a particular order of succession, through the
impressions generated in his mind by his prior recitations of the Veda
in a fixed order, should recite the Veda in that very order.¹
If it be asked: Whence is this known: We reply: “From percep-
tion and from Smṛti”. “Perception” means that which destroys the
darkness of the heart, i e. Scripture, viz. ‘He who first creates Brahmā
and he who, forsooth, delivers the Vedas to him, to that Deity, who
is the light of self-knowledge, I, desirous of release, take shelter’,
(Śvet. 6.18), similarly: ‘The creator fashioned, as he did before, the
sun and the moon, the heaven, the earth and the ether, and then the
sky’ (Rg. V. 10.190.3). There is a Smṛti passage as well, viz “Then
¹ That is, the Veda is said to be apauruseya or of non-human origin, and
nitya or eternal. Now, the first means that the Veda is eternally existent, and
is simply revealed, and not created, at the time of each new creation. The
second means that it is recited in exactly the same order of succession in different
ages all throughout.

[sū. 1. 3. 31.
190 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 8]
a lotus sprang forth from the navel of the sleeping Deity. In that lotus,
O holy one, Brahmā was born, fully versed in the Vedas and their
parts. He was told by Him "Create beings, O highly learned one"!'
'Just as the various signs of the seasons are seen to be the very same
in their regular recurrence, so are the beings in the successive stages'
(V P. 1.5.64), 'Whatever were the names of the sages and (their)
knowledge of the Vedas, the same the Unborn One gives to them when
they are born at the end of the night. Similarly, the past individual
gods are equal to the present gods in names and forms', and so on.
Hence, since the gods too may be seekers, there is nothing contradic-
tory in their being entitled to the knowledge of Brahman Therefore
it is established that the gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman.
Here ends the section entitled 'The deity' (7).
Adhikaraṇa 8. The section entitled 'The honey
and the rest'. (Sūtras 31-33)
OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtras 31–32)
SŪTRA 31
"ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOSSIBILITY, (THE SUN AND THE REST HAVE)
NO RIGHT TO THE (MEDITATIONS ON) THE HONEY AND THE REST,
(SO) JAIMINI (THINKS)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
It being impossible that the object worshipped can be the wor-
shipper himself, the sun and the rest are not entitled to the medita-
tions on the honey, etc.—so "Jaimini" thinks.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, it has been said that the gods are entitled to the knowledge
of Brahman. Now, the question is being considered whether or not
they are entitled to meditations on the honey and the rest.
The meditation on the honey is mentioned in the Chāndogya·
'This sun, verily, is the honey of the gods' (Chānd. 3.1.1) and so on.
By the phrase "and so on" (in the sūtra) other meditations in which
the gods are the objects worshipped are to be understood. Here a

[sū. 1. 3. 32.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 191
doubt arises, viz. Whether or not the gods are entitled to the medi-
tations on the honey and the rest. What is reasonable here? Gods
like the sun, Vasu and others have "no right" to the meditation on
the "honey and the rest",—so the teacher "Jaimini" thinks. Why?
"On account of impossibility," i.e. because it is impossible that the
sun and the rest which are accepted as the objects to be worshipped
in those meditations, can be themselves worshippers
OPPONENT'S VIEW (concluded)
SŪTRA 32
"AND BECAUSE OF (THEIR) BEING (WORSHIPPERS) WITH REGARD
TO THE LIGHT (I E. BRAHMAN)"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"And because of (their) being" worshippers "with regard to"
Brahman, they are not entitled to the honey-meditation and the rest,—
this is the prima facie view.
Vedānta-kaustubha
But it is not to be thought that this being the case the gods are
without a Lord, because then they, being all of a mutually equal
status, will come to be annihilated through vying with one another,
and also because the text: 'Through fear the sun arises' (Tait. 2.8.1)
will come to be contradicted. The fact is that they are the worshippers
of the Highest Self and are themselves worshipped by others. So,
the opponent points out here. The gods and the rest, who are the
objects to be worshipped in the honey-meditation and the like, being
worshippers "with regard to the light", i.e. of the Supreme Brahman,
are not to be taken as the worshippers in the honey-meditation, etc.—
this is the sense; as declared by the passage: 'That the gods worship
as the Light of lights, as life, as immortal' (Bṛh. 4.4.16).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation of the word 'jyotiṣi' different The sūtra means,
according to them: And because (the words 'sun', 'moon', and the

[sū. 1 3 33.
192 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 8.]
rest) refer to the Light That is, the sun and the rest are not sentient
deities, possessed of bodies, but are mere non-sentient spheres of
light, and what is non-sentient cannot be, evidently, entitled to any
meditation ¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 33)
SŪTRA 33
“BUT BĀDARĀYAṆA (MAINTAINS) THE EXISTENCE (OF RIGHT ON
THE PART OF THE GODS), FOR THERE IS (POSSIBLE LONGING FOR
BRAHMAN ON THEIR PART).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
With regard to it, the author states the correct conclusion.
“Bādarāyaṇa” maintains “the existence” of right on the part of the
sun, Vasu and the rest, to the honey-meditation and the like as well,
“because” a longing for Brahman “is” possible on their parts, conse-
quent on the attainment by them of their respective offices in a future
age as well, through the worship of Brahman, their Inner Controller.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Having thus set forth the view of Jaimini, his Holiness, wishing to
refute it, is stating his own view.
The word “but” precludes the prima facie view. The reverend
“Bādarāyaṇa” maintains “the existence”, i.e. the existence of right
on the part of the sun, Vasu and others, to the honey-meditation and
the like as well, “because” a longing for Brahman is possible on the
part of even the sun and Vasu and the rest in the present age,
consequent on their attainment of sun-hood, Vasu-hood and the rest
in a future age as well, through the worship of Brahman, their Inner
Controller. Thus, here the worship of Brahman being enjoined both
in His effected and causal states, the words ‘sun’ and the rest, imply
Brahman, their Inner Controller; and hence it is possible for the very
same Vasu and others to be the objects to be worshipped and attained,
since the concluding text: ‘He who knows this Brahma-Upaniṣad’
(Chānd. 3.11.3) proves that the words ‘sun’ and the rest, imply

1 S.B. 1.3.32, pp. 336-67; Bh. B. 1.3 32, p. 66.

[SŪ 1. 3. 33
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 193
Brahman. Thus, Brahman alone being the object to be worshipped
even in the honey-meditation and the like, the text: 'That the gods
worship as the light of lights, as life, as immortality' (Bṛh. 4 4.16) is
perfectly consistent. It cannot be said also that as the fruit of the
honey-meditation is the attainment of Vasu-hood and the rest, and
as Vasu and the rest have already attained that, they cannot be
seekers, or wish for these again,—because in ordinary experience, a
desire for wealth in a future life is found on the part of those who are
rich in the present life Hence, it is established that the gods are
entitled to the honey-meditation and the like 1
Here ends the section entitled 'The honey and the rest' (8).
1 The Madhu-vidyā, or the representation of the sun as the honey extracted
from all the Vedas, as taught first to Prajāpati by Brahmā, then to Manu by
Prajāpati, and then to his descendants by Manu, and to Uddālaka Āruṇi by his
father (Vide Chānd 3.11.4) is given in Chand 3 1-3 11. It begins. 'Verily, the
sun is the honey of the gods Its cross-beam is the heaven The ether is the
honey-comb The rays are the sons (1 e the sons of bees)' (Chānd. 3 1.1), and
goes on to represent the eastern rays of the sun, its red form, as extracted from
the Ry-veda; the southern rays of the sun, its white form, from the Yajur-veda;
the western rays of the sun, its dark form, from the Sāma-veda, the northern
rays of the sun, its exceedingly dark form, from the Athar va-veda; and the up-
wards rays of the sun, its centre, from the Upaniṣads (Chānd. 3.1~3.5). After
that the different forms of the sun are designated as the objects of enjoyment
for Vasus, Rudras, Ādityas, Maruts and Sādhyas who respectively enter into and
arise from those forms (Chānd. 3.6-3 10). Finally, in the concluding section
the sun is represented as standing in the middle, without rising or setting, and
as neither rising nor setting for one knows this Brahma-upaniṣad (= secret of
Brahman) (Chānd. 3 11).
(1) Here the opponent's view is that Vasus and the rest are enjoined here
as the objects of worship (Chānd. 3.6-3.10) and hence they themselves cannot
be the worshippers.
The answer to this objection is that the Madhu-vidyā has two sections
The first section (viz Chānd. 3 6-3.10) designates Brahman in His effected
state, 1 e. as appearing in the forms of Vasus and the rest The second section
(viz Chānd 3.11) designates Brahman in His causal state, 1 e. as abiding in
the sun as its Inner Self. And the concluding designation of the Madhu-vidyā
as a 'Brahma-upaniṣad', proves that the meditations on the Vasus and the rest
too are really meditations on Brahman as abiding within them. Hence Brahman
is really the object to be meditated throughout in the Madhu-vidyā, and as such
Vasus and the rest can be worshippers here, i.e. can practise the Madhu-vidyā.
13

[SŪ. 1 3. 34.
194 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 9.]
Śaṃkara
Interpretation different, viz. ‘Bādarāyaṇa (maintains) the exis-
tence (of right on the part of the gods), for (although the gods have
no right to the Madhu-vidyā and the rest, in which they themselves
are implicated, yet there is (their right to the pure knowledge of
Brahman’).¹ Thus, Śaṃkara does not admit that the gods are
entitled to the Madhu-vidyā as Nimbārka does. The view of the
latter as we have seen, is that the gods are entitled not only to the
knowledge of Brahman in general, but also to those vidyās in which
they themselves are implicated.
Bhāskara
Interpretation of ‘asti hi’ different, viz. ‘ . for there is
(scriptural evidence that the gods are entitled to the Madhu-vidyā
and the rest)’.²
————————————
Adhikaraṇa 9: The section entitled ‘The exclu-
sion of the Śūdras. (Sūtras 34—41)
SŪTRA 34
“HIS GRIEF (AROSE) ON ACCOUNT OF HEARING ITS DISRESPECT, ON
ACCOUNT OF HASTENING AT THAT TIME, FOR THIS IS WHAT IS
INDICATED (BY THE TERM “ŚŪDRA”).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
It is not to be supposed, on the ground³ that in the Chāndogya
the term ‘Śūdra’ is applied by a preceptor to one desirous of salvation,
(2) The opponent resumes: Even if Brahman and none else, be the object
of meditation here, yet Vasus cannot be held to be practising the Madhu-vidyā,
since the fruit of Madhu-vidyā is the attainment of Vasu-hood, etc. and why should
those who are already Vasus, etc. strive to be so again.
The answer is that they may be Vasus and so on in the present age, but
at the same time be desirous of holding the same position in a future age also,
and of finally attaining Brahman. It is this desire of attaining Vasu-hood, etc.
first and then Brahman which leads them to practise the Madhu-vidyā.
¹ ‘Yady-api madhv-ādi-vidyāsu devatādi-vya-miśrāsu asambhavo’ dhikā-
rasya, tathāpi asti hi śuddhāyāṃ Brahmavidyāyāṃ sambhavaḥ’
Ś. B. 1.3.33, p. 367.
² Bh. B. 1.3.33, p. 66. ³ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason.