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

[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.

[sū. 1. 3. 34
ADH. 9 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 195
that a Śūdra ¹ is entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Because
of "his", ² i.e. of Jānaśruti's, desire for salvation, on hearing the dis-
respectful words used by the swan, and because of his hastening
towards, for that reason, to the preceptor at that very moment,—
'it is indicated' that his grief had arisen and that was what was
meant by the address 'Śūdra'.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the following question is being considered: Just as it has
been said that the gods are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, as
the term 'God' is mentioned in the text: 'Then, whosoever among
the gods is awakened' (Bṛh. 1.4.10), so whether or not a Śūdra too
is entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, seeing that in the Chān-
dogya, the word 'śūdra' is mentioned in reference to Jānaśruti who
desired for salvation.
If it be suggested: The word 'śūdra' being mentioned in the
Chāndogya under the Saṁvarga-vidyā in the passages: '"Oh! the
necklace and the carriage be yours, O Śūdra, together with the cows"'
(Chānd. 4.2.3), '"You have brought these, O Śūdra"!' (Chānd. 4.2.3);
a Śūdra too must be entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, it being
possible for him also to be a seeker.³ And, he may gain the know-
ledge of the nature, etc. of Brahman through the hearing of tradition
and the rest, in accordance with the statement of the ancient ones:
'He should make the four castes hear, beginning with the Brāhmaṇa'
(Mahā. 12.12360a ⁴), and, the statement of Hari-Vaṁśa: 'One who is
Śūdra by birth should attain a good end through hearing', which
lays down an injunction with regard to the hearing of Brahman by
him also. The prohibition contained in the passage: 'Hence, a
Śūdra is not to be initiated to a sacrifice' (Tait. Saṁ. 7.1.1 ⁵), is
concerned simply with his disqualification with regard to acts like
sacrifices to be performed by means of fire, but is not a cause of his
¹ The fourth and the lowest caste
² Here the genitive case implies an agent (kartṛ) in accordance with Pāṇ.
2.3.65, SD. K. 623.
³ That is, just as it has been shown that gods are entitled to the knowledge
of Brahman, since they desire (arthins) for salvation, so the Śūdras too desire for
salvation and are as such entitled to the same knowledge.
⁴ P. 81, line 4, vol. 3. ⁵ P. 241, line 21, vol. 2

196 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 3. 34.
ADH. 9.]
disqualification for knowledge, as knowledge is mental, and as Vidura ¹
and the rest, as well as women like Sulabhā ² and so on are found to
possess the knowledge of Brahman,—
We reply: A Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman
for the following reasons. First, he lacks the requisite fitness, not
having the knowledge of the nature of Brahman and the method of
worshipping Him Secondly, although the worship of Brahman may
be accomplished mentally, yet the knowledge of the nature, etc. of
Brahman is generated by the study of the Veda, preceded by the
investiture with the holy thread. Finally, a Śūdra being excluded
from investitue, is not fit for knowing Brahman and as such his seeking
is of no great value. As the injunctions regarding work hold good
in the case of the first three classes, the prohibition holds good equally
with regard to knowledgo as with regard to work. Also, as in accord-
ance with the statement: 'The Veda is to be confirmed by tradition
and Purāṇa' (Mahā. 1.260 ³), tradition and Purāṇa, too, confirm the
knowledge established by the Veda, a Śūdra cannot attain knowledge
from that too. The injunction about the 'hearing', on the other
hand, simply means that such a 'hearing' has the effect of destroying
a Śūdra's sins and securing prosperity for him, here or hereafter,
and not that he is entitled to meditation or knowledge. The possession
of knowledge by Vidura and the rest should be known to be due to the
non-destruction of the knowledge which they attained in another
birth, and their such low births should be known to be due to their
works which had begun to bear fruits. Hence a Śūdra is not entitled
to the knowledge of Brahman
On the other hand, the term 'Śūdra', mentioned in Scripture,
is to be explained thus. This the reverend author of the aphorisms
states in the words: “ grief ”, and so on. “ For ” implies the reason,
and “ his ”, means Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇas That is, on hearing the
disrespectful words used by the swan for his want of knowledge of
Brahman, thus. '“O, who is that man of whom you speak, as if he
were Raikva, with the cart”?' (Chānd. 4.1.3), Jānaśruti at once
¹ Vidura was the younger brother of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu. He was the
son of Vyāsa and a slave-girl, who was dressed as one of the widows of Vicitra-
vīryya, and mistaken by Vyāsa as such Vide Mahā. 1.4301, etc.
² Sulabhā was female mendicant who entered into a highly learned discourse
with Janaka. Vide Mahā 12.11854 et seq. (Chap. 321)
³ P. 10, line 11, vol. I.

[sū. 1. 3. 34.
ADH 9] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 197
hastened to Raikva, the man with the cart and a knower of Brahman.
From this, it is “indicated” that his “grief” had arisen. Hence, the
address ‘Śūdra’ was applied by the sage to a non-Śūdra, with a view
to intimating his own omniscience, thinking: ‘This Jānaśruti has come
to learn the knowledge of Brahman from me, tempting me with the
offering of riches. He does not know me, that I have performed all
my duties and am omniscient’. Thus, (the whole story goes).
Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇa was a royal saint, versed in religious duties.
Certain divine sages, pleased with his multitude of qualities, and
intending that having heard their conversation, and having thereupon
approached Raikva, the knower of Brahman, Jānaśruti, too, would
become a knower of Brahman, assumed the forms of swans and began
to fly in a circle over the king who was lying on the roof of his palace
in summer Then, the swan which was following said with surprise
to the one which was leading. ‘O Bhallākṣa, Bhallākṣa, do you not
see the light of the king Jānaśruti which has pervaded the region
of the heaven? That light will burn you, so do not cross it’. On
hearing these words of the one following it, the leading swan replied:
‘ “O, who is that man of him you speak as if he were Raikva, with the
cart”? ’ (Chānd. 4 1.3), i.e you speak of this Jānaśruti as if he were
Raikva with the cart, meaning, the reverend Raikva who has a
‘yugva’ or a cart and is a knower of Brahman. By the adjective
‘with a cart’, Raikva’s mark was indicated, in order that he might
be easily found out and approached. Then, on hearing the disres-
pectful words used by the swan, Jānaśruti too, ascertained, in the
morning, the whereabout of Raikva through his man, and repaired
to the sage Raikva, taking with him six hundred cows, a necklace and
a chariot yoked with horses, and having approached him, said: ‘O
Raikva! Take all these cows and the rest, and teach me, O reverend
sir’. Raikva replied ‘ “O, the necklace ” ’ (Chānd. 4.2.3) and so on,
i.e. ‘O Śūdra, the heap of wealth, like the chariot and the rest, together
with the cows be yours’. And he addressed him as ‘O Śūdra’ more
than once (viz again in Chānd. 4.2.5). A ‘Śūdra’ is one who grieves
(śocati), and the word is formed in accordance with the rule:
‘When the root “śuc” is followed by the suffix “ra”, the “ca”
is replaced by “da” ’ (SD. K. Uṇādi-sūtra 176 ¹), and the vowel ‘u’ is
lengthened (in accordance with the uṇādi-sūtra 175 ²). Hence “his”,
1 P. 599, vol. 2. 2 Thus, śuc+ra = śud+ra = śūdra.

[sū. 1 3. 35.
198 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 9.]
i.e. Jānaśruti's grief alone "was indicated" by Raikva, with a view
to pointing out Jānaśruti's fitness for receiving instruction, and not
his connection with any caste,—this is the sense ¹
SŪTRA 35
'(JĀNAŚRUTI WAS NOT A ŚŪDRA) ALSO BECAUSE WE KNOW OF
(HIS) KṢATRIYAHOOD FROM THE INDICATION, (VIZ. THE FACT OF
HIS BEING MENTIONED) LATER ON WITH CAITRARATHA"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"Because we know of the Kṣatriyahood" of Jānaśruti "from the
indication" viz. that 'later on' he was mentioned together with
Caitraratha Abhipratārin, Kṣatriya, in the passage: 'Now, when
Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārin Kākṣaseni were being served
food, a religious student begged of them' (Chānd. 4.3.5 ²), Jānaśruti
was not a Śūdra.
Vedānta-kaustubha
From this reason also, the author, points out, the Kṣatriyahood
of Jānaśruti is known.
His grief alone has arisen; hence he was called a 'Śūdra' by the
sage; this being so, the Śūdrahood of Jānaśruti was not due to his
caste. Why? Because we know of (his) Kṣatriyahood"; i.e. also
because we know of his Kṣatriyahood from the fact that in the intro-
ductory passage, viz. 'A plentiful giver, one preparing many food'
(Chānd 4.1.1), he is known to be a lord of gifts and a giver of much
well-cooked food, from the fact of his sending the door-keeper, known
from the passage. 'He said to the door-keeper' (Chānd. 4 1 5) and
from the fact of his giving golden ornaments, chariot and daughter to
Raikva. Having, thus, stated the marks contained in the introduc-
tory text and proving the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti, the author goes
on to show the mark, contained in the concluding text of the saṃvarga-
vidyā, according to the maxim of the 'crow's eye',³—the term "and"
¹ Vide Chānd 4.1–4 2.
² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.
³ The maxim of the 'crow's eye' means as follows. Crows are supposed to
have only one eye, which as occasion requires, moves from the cavity on one side
into that of another. The maxim is used of a word which appears only once

[sū 1. 3 35.
ADH. 9 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 199
(in the sūtra) referring to both—, in the words "And from the indica-
tion, (viz the fact of his being mentioned) later on with Caitraratha :
i e. "from the indication", viz. that Jānaśruti was mentioned together
with Caitraratha who is ascertained to be a Kṣatriya from the fact
of his association with a well-known priest of Kṣatriyas. Thus, in
the concluding text, viz . 'Now, when Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhi-
pratārin Kākṣaseni were being served food by a cook,¹ a religious
student begged of them' (Chānd. 4.3 5), Caitraratha, named Abhi-
pratārin is mentioned. This is the sense: On the enquiry: 'who were
the two that were being served' 'by the cook', i.e. by one who superin-
tends over the oven ²—the text says, Śunaka's descendant, the priest
of the Kapi clan, and Kaksasena's descendant, named Abhipratārin,
the king When these two sat down to eat, they were asked for alms.
If it be asked. Whence do you know that Abhipratārin was a
Caitraratha ? (a descendant of Citraratha),—we reply: He was so,
because of his connection with Kāpeya, (i.e. descendant of Kapi),
the priest of Citraratha. From the text 'The Kāpeyas made Citra-
ratha perform sacrifice by this' (Tānd Br 20 12.5 ²), it is well-known
that the Kāpeyas were the priests of Citraratha The term 'by this'
means 'by the Dvi-rātra'.
If it be objected. Very well, let Abhipratārin be Caitraratha
because of his connection with a priest of Citra, but what proof is
there of his Kṣatriyahood ?—(we reply): The text: 'From him was
born a king of Kṣatriyas, named Caitraratha', is the proof. The words
'from him' mean 'from Citraratha'.
A Kṣatriya being referred to in the end, Jānaśruti, mentioned in
the beginning, too, must be a Kṣatriya, since in one and the same
vidyā there is the mention, as a rule, of persons of the same class,—
this is the meaning of the aphorism. Moreover, the Kṣatriyahood
of Abhipratārin being ascertained in the end on the ground of his
in a sentence, but which applies to two portions of it, or to two persons or things,
fulfilling a double purpose The maxim may be said to approximate to the
English one of 'killing two birds with one stone'. Vide L.N, Part I, pp. 12-13.
Likewise, here the phrase ' Kṣatriyatvāvagameḥ' fulfils a double purpose, meaning
both 'on account of knowing the Kṣatriyahood of Caitraratha Abhipratārin',
and 'on account of knowing the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti' See p. 200, n. 1.
¹ The word 'sūdena' not found in the original text. Vide Chānd. 4.3.5,
p. 189.
² P. 561, vol. 2.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 36.
200 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 9.]
association with Kāpeya, a Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti,
too, is ascertained in the beginning on the ground of his association
with Raikva,—this is the sense.¹
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading different, viz. They break it into two different sūtras:
‘Kṣatriyatvā gateś ca’ (sūtra 34), and ‘uttaratra-liṅgāt’ (sūtra 35 ²).
Bhāskara
Reading different, viz. ‘Kṣatriyatvā-gateś ca . . . ³
instead of ‘Kṣatriyatva-avagateś ca . . .’
SŪTRA 36
“ON ACCOUNT OF THE REFERENCE TO PURIFICATORY RITES, AND
ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECLARATION OF THEIR ABSENCE (IN THE
CASE OF A ŚŪDRA), (A ŚŪDRA IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE KNOWLEDGE
OF BRAHMAN)”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“On account of the reference to the purificatory rites” of investi-
ture with the holy thread in the section concerned with knowledge,
¹ Thus, altogether three reasons are advanced—why Jānaśruti is to be taken
as a Kṣatriya:—
(a) In the beginning, Jānaśruti is said to be practising charity, feeding people
on a large scale, which proves him to be a Kṣatriya.
(b) In the end, Abhipratārin is mentioned, and Abhipratārin being a Kṣatriya,
Jānaśruti must he so, since persons of the class are entitled to the same Vidyā.
(c) Abhipratārin, mentioned in the end, is said to be a Kṣatriya, because of
his connection with a Brāhmaṇa (viz. Kāpeya), and hence Jānaśruti, mentioned
in the beginning must be so, because of his connection with a Brāhmaṇa (viz.
Raikva).
² Śrī. B. 1.3.34-35, pp. 337-338, Part 1, Madras ed. Some editions read
‘Kṣatriyatva-avagateśca’. Vide Bombay ed., p. 326.
The Benares of V.D , reads ‘Kṣatriyatva-gateś ca’ (p. 60); but the Brin-
davan ed. of V.S., reads ‘Kṣatriyatva-avagateś ca’ (p. 46).
Śk. 1 3.34-35, pp. 438, 480, Part 5
³ Bh. B. 1.3.34, p. 67.