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

[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.

[SŪ 1. 3. 36.
ADH. 9] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 201
thus. 'He invested him, forsooth, with the holy thread' (Śat. Br.
11 5 3 13 ¹) and so on, "and on account of the declaration of their
absence" thus: 'A Śūdra, belongs to the fourth caste and is once-
born (G.D.S. 10 50 ²), 'And he is not fit for a purificatory rite
(Manu 10 126 ³),—a Śūdra is not entitled to knowledge.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the previous aphorism, the disqualification of a Śūdra for the
knowledge of Brahman has been established on the ground of reason
Now, his disqualification is being proved on the ground of Scripture,
etc. as well.
A Śūdra is not entitled to knowledge. Why? "On account of
the reference to purificatory rites," i.e. on account of the reference to
the purificatory rites of investiture with the holy thread in sections
concerned with knowledge, thus 'He invested him, forsooth, with the
holy thread' (Śat. Br 11 5 3.13). But, then, is it to be supposed
that a Śūdra, too, is entitled to investiture? To this it is replied
"On account of the declaration of their absence", i.e on account of
the depiction of the absence, in the case of a Śūdra, of purificatory
rites like investiture with the holy thread and the rest, in the passages :
'In a Śūdra there is no sin and he is not fit for a purificatory rite'
(Manu. 10.126). 'A Śūdra belongs to the fourth caste and is once-
born' (G.D S. 10.50) and so on The investiture with the holy
thread is designated in the case of others in the passage: 'Let one
invest a Brāhmaṇa with the holy thread at the age of eight, a Kṣatriya
at eleven, and a Vaiśya at twelve' (Āś. GS. 17.1 3-4 ⁴)
Hence, the reference to investiture with the holy thread fits in
in the sections concerned with knowledge.

¹ P 861, line 19. ² P. 14, line 8.
Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
³ P. 419. ⁴ P. 72.
Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

|SŪ. 1. 3. 37
202 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 9.|
SŪTRA 37
"AND BECAUSE OF (GAUTAMA'S) PROCEEDING (TO INITIATE JĀBĀLA)
ON THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE ABSENCE OF THAT (VIZ HIS
ŚŪDRAHOOD), (A ŚŪDRA IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF
BRAHMAN)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Moreover, "because of" Gautama's "proceeding" to invest
Jābāla with the holy thread and to teach him, only "on the ascer-
tainment of the absence" of his Śūdrahood,—here, too, a Śūdra is
not indeed entitled to the knowledge of Brahman.
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason too, says the author, a Śūdra is not entitled to the
knowledge of Brahman
Fatherless Jābāla, desirous of salvation, and about to approach
a preceptor, asked his mother with a view to learning his lineage.
'Of what lineage am I?' She too, unaware of his lineage, replied:
'I do not know'. Jābāla too, having approached Gautama, said:
'Reverend Sir! I wish to stay in your place as a student of sacred know-
ledge' Then, being asked by him: 'Of what lineage are you?'
Jābāla said: 'Sir, I do not know of what lineage I am,' and so on.
Thus, when Jābāla had spoken the truth, and when, thereby, the
absence of Jābāla's Śūdrahood had been ascertained thus: '"A non-
Brāhmaṇa cannot speak thus"' (Chānd 4.4.5 ¹), then only Gautama
proceeded to invest Jābāla with the holy thread and teach him with
the words: '"Fetch the fuel, my child. I shall invest you with
the holy thread. You have not deviated from truth"' (Chānd.
4 4.5 ²). Hence, a Śūdra is not entitled to knowledge.
1 Correct quotation—' . . vivaktum arhati' Vide Chānd. 4.4.5,
p. 196.
2 Vide Chānd. 4.4 for the whole story.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 38.
ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 203
SŪTRA 38
“ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROHIBITION OF HEARING, STUDYING, AND
(LEARNING) THE MEANING (OF THE VEDA), (A ŚŪDRA IS NOT
ENTITLED TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF BRAHMAN).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
A Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, “on account
of the prohibition of the hearing” and so on of the Veda on his part,
in the text ‘One should not study (the Veda) in the vicinity of a
Śūdra’ (V.Sm 18.9 ¹) and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason, too, a Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of
Brahman. For what reason? “On account of the prohibition of
hearing” and the rest on the part of a Śūdra, in the passage ‘A
cemetery, endowed with feet, is, verily, a Śūdra ² Hence one should
not study (the Veda) in the vicinity of a Śūdra’ (V Sm 18.9), ‘Hence
a Śūdra is a beast,³ not fit for sacrifices’ and on so. The sense (of
the first passage) is. A ‘cemetery’ that is ‘endowed with feet’, i.e.
capable of moving, ‘is a Śūdra’, in whose presence one should not
even study the Vedas. The sense is that the hearing of the Veda,
the study of it, the performance of the religious duties mentioned
therein, are prohibited, all the more, to a Śūdra.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva
They treat this sūtra and the next as one sūtra ⁴

¹ P 216, line 20. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
² Reading slightly differs, viz. ‘Eka vai tac-chmaśānaṁ . . .’ (p. 216).
³ ‘Bahu-paśuḥ paśu sadṛśa iti arthaḥ.’ Śrī. B. 1.3.38, p. 339, Part I.
⁴ Ś B. 1 3 38, p. 376; Bh. B. 1 3.38, p. 68; G B. 1.3 38

204 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 1. 3. 39-40.
ADH. 6 resumed ]
SŪTRA 39
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF SMṚTI.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“And on account of the Smṛti”, viz. ‘One should not teach him
sacred duties’ (Manu 4.80b ¹, V.Sm. 18 12 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
“And on account of the Smṛti”, viz ‘One should not teach him
sacred duties, nor sacred vows’ (Manu 4 80b, V.Sm 18 12), ‘One
should not impart knowledge to a śūdra’ (Manu 4.80a; V Sm. 18.12)
and so on.
Here ends the section entitled ‘The exclusion of Śūdras’ (9).
Adhikarana 6 resumed. The section entitled
‘What is measured’ resumed. (Sūtras 40 - 41)
SŪTRA 40
“ON ACCOUNT OF THE SHAKING.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
What is measured, is to be known as the Supreme Person, He
being the shaker of the entire universe, and because the words ‘great’
and the rest are found used.
Vedānta-kaustubha
After having completed the incidental discussion about qualifica-
tion (adhikāra) in connection with the discussion about the Person,
measured as the size of merely a thumb, begun in the aphorism ‘On
account of the text only, what is measured (is the Lord)’ (Br. Sū.
1.3.24), the author is finishing the original discussion.
¹ P 146.
² P. 217, line 1.
R.

[SŪ. 1 3. 41]
ADH. 6 resumed.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 205
The words ‘what is measured’ are to be supplied. In the Kaṭha-
vallī, we find the following in the section of the Person, of the size of
merely a thumb ‘Whatever there is, the whole world, emanated
(from the vital-breath), trembles in the vital-breath alone, the great
fear, a thunderbolt about to be hurled. Those who know that become
immortal’ (Kaṭha 6. 2). Here, what is measured as of the size of a
thumb and is denoted by the term ‘vital-breath’ is none but the
Supreme Being. Why? For the following reasons: First, “on
account of the shaking”, i. e. the Lord alone is the cause of the shaking
of the entire universe, emanated from Himself. Secondly, the term
‘great’, which is a synonym for Brahman, has been used. Thirdly,
the term ‘fear’ proves that the vital-breath is Brahman, for He alone
is the cause of the fear of all, as declared by the text: ‘Through fear
of him the fire burns, through fear the sun shines, through fear Indra,
Wind and Death, the fifth, speed on’ (Kaṭha 6. 3), and finally, the
Lord alone is the cause of the immortality of one who possesses know-
ledge of Him.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different, viz. they take this sūtra as forming a
new adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the
term ‘prāṇa’ in Kaṭha-upaniṣad (6.2) denotes Brahman or not. But
according to Nimbārka, this sūtra does not begin a new adhikaraṇa,
but only resumes adhikaraṇa 6.
Baladeva
Interpretation different, viz he also begins a new adhikaraṇa
here, concerned with the question whether the term ‘vajra’ in Kaṭha-
upaniṣad (6. 2) denotes Brahman or not.
SŪTRA 41
“BECAUSE OF PERCEIVING LIGHT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Because in the text: ‘Through his light’ (Kaṭha 5.15¹), ‘light’
is mentioned, the measured Person is the Supreme Being.
¹ R, B.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 42.
206 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the very same Kaṭha-vallī, in the section of the Person measured
as of the size of a thumb, it is declared, prior to the text about the
vital-breath, (viz. Kaṭha 6. 2) 'The sun does not shine there, nor the
moon and the stars, nor do these lightnings shine, much less this fire.
He shining, everything else shines after him. All this shines through
his light' (Kaṭha 6.2). "Because" in this text, light, belonging
exclusively to the Supreme Soul who is denoted by the term 'light',
"is seen" (i.e. declared), it is established that what is of the size
of merely a thumb is none but the Supreme Soul.
Here ends the section entitled 'What is measured' (6).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different, viz. they take this sūtra as forming a
new adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the
term 'light' in the Chāndogyopaniṣad (8. 12.6) denotes Brahman or
not.¹
Baladeva
Interpretation different, viz. '(The word "vajra" in the Kaṭho-
paniṣad must mean the Lord), because it is seen (that in a preceding
passage He is called) light'.²
Adhikaraṇa 10: The section entitled 'Some-
thing different'. (Sūtras 42–44)
SŪTRA 42
"THE ETHER (IS BRAHMAN), ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION
(OF IT) AS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND SO ON."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the passage: 'The ether, verily, is the producer of name and
form' (Chānd. 8.14. 1³), the object denoted by the term 'ether' is the
¹ S.B. 1.3.40, pp. 380 et seq., Bh. B. 1.3.40, p. 69; SK. B. 1.3. 41, pp. 498
et seq. Part 5.
² G.B. 1.3.40. ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B

[SŪ 1. 3 42.
ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 207
Highest Person. Why? "On account of the designation" of the
Supreme Soul "as something different" from even the freed souls,—
He being the producer of all objects possessing names and forms
implied by the term 'name and form',—as well as on account of the
designation of Brahmanhood, immortality and the rest on its part.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, by means of the aphorism: 'On account of the text only,
what is measured (is the Lord)' (Br Sū 1 3 24), the text regarding
the Person of the size of merely a thumb has been shown to be referring
to Brahman, and this has been confirmed once more immediately
after the end of the incidental sections. Now, with a view to desig-
nating the non-attachment and the omnipresence of the Supreme
Self, it is being shown that the text about the ether, too, refers to
Him.
In the Chāndogya, we read: 'The ether, verily, is the producer
of name and form. That within which they are is Brahman, that is
immortal, that is the soul' (Chānd. 8.14.1). Here a doubt arises,
viz. whether by the term 'ether' the elemental ether is to be under-
stood here, or the soul freed from the bondage of mundane existence,
or the Supreme Soul. If it be said that the elemental ether is to be
understood, since the term 'ether' is well-known to denote that
alone,—(we reply:) no, on account of the term 'soul'. What then
should be understood? If it be suggested: the freed soul, Why?
For the following reasons: First, the freed soul alone has been men-
tioned previously as the topic of discussion, in the passage: 'Shaking
off (evils) as a horse shakes off his hairs' (Chānd. 8.13.1),—the phrase:
'That within which they are' means: That soul, freed from mundane
existence, from which 'they', i.e. name and form 'are different'
(antara), i.e. outside. Further, the discarding of the well-known name
and form is possible on the part of the soul in its state of release, as
declared by the passage: 'Just as the flowing rivers, discarding name
and form' (Muṇḍ. 3.2.8). And, finally, the term 'ether', too, is
appropriate with regard to the freed soul, it being possessed of fully
manifest knowledge. The phrase: 'That is Brahman, that is immortal'
denotes the state of salvation.
(Author's conclusion.)
We reply: The meaning of the term 'ether' here can fittingly
be the Supreme Soul alone. Why? "On account of the designation

[SŪ. 1. 3. 43.
208 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.]
(of it) as something different", i. e. on account of the designation of
the object denoted by the term 'ether',—which is untouched by name
and form, as evident from the phrase 'That within which they are',
and is the producer of name and form, as evident from the phrase
'The producer of name and form',—as different from the object which
is devoid of the power of being a producer, since during its state of
bondage, the soul, partaking of name and form as subject to karmas,
is not itself capable of producing, i e. revealing, name and form,—
to do so being all the more impossible on its part during its state of
release. That the activities in connection with (the creation and the
rest) of the Universe, are impossible on its part, will be expressly stated
later on ¹. On the other hand, that the Supreme Soul, an adept in
the creation of the entire Universe, is such a producer, is well-estab-
lished by Scripture itself, thus: '"Having entered with this living
soul, let me evolve name and form"' (Chānd. 6 3 2), 'From him
arose—² this name, form and food' (Muṇḍ. 1.1 9) 'The Wise One,
who abides conceiving all forms, giving names, and declaring (them)'
(Tait. Ār. 3.12.7 ³) The 'ether' is Brahman also on account of the
designation, in the text, of the exclusive qualities of the Lord, such
as, being eternally manifest, greatness, immortality and the rest,
implied by the term "and so on" (in the sūtra). Nor has the freed
soul been mentioned before as the topic of discussion, the Supreme
Soul alone being the topic, as evident from the passage: 'I attain
the world of Brahman' (Chānd. 8.13 1), and the term 'ether', too,
being well-known to denote the Supreme Soul alone, it being all-
pervasive and non-attached.
SŪTRA 43
"(AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF BRAHMAN) AS
DIFFERENT (FROM THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL) IN DEEP SLEEP AND
DEPARTURE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And on account of the designation of the omniscient "as different"
from the non-knower "in deep sleep and departing".
¹ Vide Br. Sū. 4.4 17.
² Correct quotation: 'Tasmād etat Brahma . . . '. Vide Muṇḍ. 1.1.9,
p. 10.
³ P. 199.

[sū. 1. 3. 43.
ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 209
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected: Since it is found from a consideration of the
meaning of the text 'Thou art that' (Chānd. 6.8 7, etc.¹) that there
cannot possibly be anything different from Brahman, how can it be
said. "On account of the designation (of Brahman) as something
different and so on"? (Br. Sū. 1.3.42)—
(We reply)· True In spite of there being non-difference between
the individual soul, which is a part of Brahman, and Brahman, owing
to the fact that the individual soul has no existence, activity and the
rest apart from Brahman,—its difference from Him, too, is inevitable,
possessing as it does its own peculiar qualities,—so says the reverend
author of the aphorisms.
The words "on account of the designation" are to be supplied.
(The individual soul and Brahman are different from each other,)
on account of the designation of the Supreme Soul, the omniscient,
as "different" from the individual soul, the non-knower, "in deep
sleep", in the passage : 'Embraced by the Intelligent Soul, he does
not know anything external, nor anything internal' (Bṛh. 4.3.21),
and "in departure", in the passage 'Mounted by the Intelligent
Soul, it goes groaning' (Bṛh. 4.3.35). 'Mounted' means superin-
tended, 'groaning' means making frightful sounds, or sounds of
hiccough. It is not possible that the non-knowing soul, sleeping or
departing, can at the same time, becoming intelligent, embrace or
mount itself, or that another individual soul can do so, omniscience
being impossible on the latter's part as well.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz. according to them, this adhikaraṇa
is concerned with the question whether the Bṛhadāraṇyaka text
4.3.7 refers to the Supreme Soul, or not.²
¹ Also occurs in Chānd. 6.9.4, 6.10.3, 6.11.3, 6.12.3, 6.13.3, 6.14.3, 6.15.3,
6.16.3.
² Ś.B. 1.3.42, pp. 382; Bh B 1.3.42, p. 70.

[SŪ. 1. 3. 44.
210 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.]
SŪTRA 44
“ON ACCOUNT OF WORDS LIKE ‘LORD’ AND THE REST.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
On account of the designation of the Supreme Soul as different
from the individual soul by the texts: ‘The Lord of all’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22,
5.6.1 ¹), ‘The ruler of all’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ²), it is established that He
alone is the ether.
Here ends the third section of the first chapter in the Vedānta-
pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā-
texts composed by the reverend Nimbārka.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author dwells on the difference between the individual soul
and Brahman.
There is indeed a difference between the individual soul and the
Supreme Soul. Why? “On account of words like ‘lord’ and the
rest”, i.e. on account of texts like: ‘The Lord of all’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22,
5.6.1), ‘The controller of all’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22), ‘The ruler of all’
(Bṛh. 4.4.22), ‘He rules all this’ (Bṛh. 5 6 1), ‘He is the Lord of
all’ (Bṛh. 4 4 22) and so on
Though already shown above, we shall speak of this difference-
non-difference in detail later on ³. Hence, it is established that on
account of the designation of the Lord as something different and so
on, the meaning of the term ‘ether’ is none but the Supreme Lord.
Here ends the section entitled ‘Something different’ (10).
Here ends the third section of the first chapter in the Vedānta-
kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, and
composed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa.
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
² Op. cit.
³ Vide e.g. V.K. 1 4.9, 1.4 20, 1 4 21, 2.1 13, 2 1.21, etc.

[sū. 1. 3. 44.
ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 211
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz. the same topic continued.¹
Résumé
The third section of the first chapter contains:
(1) 44 sūtras and 10 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka.
(2) 43 sūtras and 13 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṃkara
(3) 44 sūtras and 10 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja.
(4) 43 sūtras and 13 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara.
(5) 44 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha.
(6) 43 sūtras and 10 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva.
Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva read the sūtras 38 and 39 in
Nimbārka's commentary as one sūtra.
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha read the sūtras 2 and 3 in Nimbārka's
commentary as one sūtra, while breaking the sūtra 35 in the same
as two different sūtras.
¹ Ś.B 1.3.43, p 385; Bh. B. 1.3.43, p. 70

FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyāya)
FOURTH QUARTER (Pāda)
Adhikarana 1 The section entitled 'What is
derived from inference'. (Sūtras 1–7)
SŪTRA 1
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT WHAT IS DERIVED FROM INFERENCE
(VIZ. PRADHĀNA), TOO, (IS MENTIONED IN THE TEXTS) OF SOME
(BRANCHES), (WE REPLY:) NO, BECAUSE OF UNDERSTANDING
WHAT IS PUT DOWN IN THE SIMILE OF THE BODY, AND (THE TEXT)
SHOWS (THIS).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that in a text of the Kaṭha-branch, viz. ‘Higher
than the great (mahat) is the unmanifest (avyakta), higher than the
unmanifest is the Person (puruṣa)’ (Kaṭha 3.11 ¹), “What is derived
from inference” ², i.e. pradhāna, “too”, is found mentioned,³—
(We reply :) “No”, because in accordance with the text: ‘Know
the soul to be the lord of the chariot and the body to be the chariot’
(Kaṭha 3.3 ⁴), the body, which is put down in the simile of the chariot,
is understood by the term ‘unmanifest’. “And” having demon-
strated the mode of subduing the sense-organs, the text “shows”,
in the concluding portion ⁵, that what had been previously contrived
through the simile ⁶ (viz. the body), is understood here, thus: ‘A
wise man should restrain speech in the mind, that he should restrain
in the intelligent soul, the intelligent soul in the great (mahat), that
he should restrain in the tranquil soul’ (Kaṭha 3.13 ⁷)
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
² For, why pradhāna is called ‘ānumānika’, see footnote 1, p 42.
³ Cf. Br. Sū. 1.1.5, which contends that pradhāna is ‘aśabda’ or not
mentioned in Scripture.
⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
⁵ C.S S. ed. reads ‘vākya-śeṣaḥ’ (p. 19).
⁶ ‘Rūpaka-parikalpitaṁ grahaṇam’ is evidently a misprint. All other
editions read ‘rūpaka-parikalpita-grahaṇam’, meaning ‘rūpaka-parikalpitasya
grahaṇam’. Vide e.g C.S S. ed (p. 19).
⁷ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.