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

[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.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 1
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 213
Vedānta-kaustubha
In this manner, it has been shown above, under three sections,
that the scriptural texts all refer to Brahman, possessing the sentient
and the non-sentient as His powers, an ocean of natural, infinite and
inconceivable auspicious qualities, untouched by any material qualities
and the cause of the world. Now again, in the fourth section, by
showing ¹ that those texts too which apparently seem to establish
pradhāna—which is demonstrated by the doctrine of Kapila and is
independent of Brahman,—all refer really to Brahman, and by estab-
lishing ² that pradhāna is acceptable only as dependent on Brahman,
—the reverend author of the aphorisms is removing the false belief,
viz. that certain words like 'Unmanifest' and the rest, which denote
pradhāna, being mentioned in Scripture, pradhāna, admitted by the
Sāṁkhyas, is neither non-scriptural, nor derived from inference merely.
In the Kaṭha-valli, we find the following: 'Higher than the great
(mahat) is the unmanifest (avyakta), higher than the unmanifest
is the Person (puruṣa)' (Kaṭha 3.11). Here, a doubt arises, viz.
whether the object denoted by the word 'unmanifest' is pradhāna,
admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, or the body. The prima facie view is as
follows: Let it be pradhāna, because here we recognize the very same
order, beginning with the great (mahat) and ending with the Person
(puruṣa), which is well-known in the Kapila-smṛti. If it be objected:
The concordance of the entire Veda with regard to Brahman, the cause
of the world, has been established duly; hence it is not possible to
establish its connection with anything else, (the reply is:) Very well,
let then pradhāna, "derived from inference", (mentioned in the
texts) "of some" schools, be the cause of the world. So here in the
school of the Kāṭhakas pradhāna is understood by the term 'un-
manifest'. (Here ends the original prima facie view.)
(Author's conclusion:) "No". Wherefore? "Because of under-
standing what is put down in the simile of the body", i.e. because
by the term 'unmanifest' in this text, the body, mentioned in the
preceding text and put down as a simile, is to be understood. A
simile means the imagination of one object as another on the ground
of a certain similarity. Thus, compare the passages: 'Know the soul
to be the lord of the chariot, the body to be the chariot, know intellect

¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason.
² See footnote 1, above.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 1.
214 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.]
to be the charioteer, and the mind to be the reins. The sense-organs,
they say, are the horses, the objects of the senses their roads; the self,
connected with the sense-organs and the mind, is the enjoyer, so the
wise say. He who is devoid of understanding and ever inattentive,
his sense-organs are uncontrollable, like the wicked horses of a cha-
rioteer. But he who is possessed of intelligence and ever attentive,
his sense-organs are controllable, like the good horses of a charioteer
He, however, who is devoid of understanding, is inattentive and ever
impure, does not attain that place, and attains mundane existence
But he who is possessed of understanding, is attentive and ever pure,
attains that place whence he is not born again. A man, however, who
has understanding as his charioteer and the mind as his reins, attains
the end of the road, that supreme place of Viṣṇu’ (Kaṭha 3.3; 3 9).
In these passages, a man—who is desirous of the place of Viṣṇu, the
end of the road of transmigratory existence, and who being the enjoyer
is the principal agent—is first metaphorically represented as the lord
of a chariot, his body,—which is subordinate to him as the abode of
his enjoyment,—as the chariot, and the sense-organs, intellect and
the rest, as the charioteer and the rest, as far as possible,—which
shows that just as it is possible for a potter to be the creator of pots, etc.
only when he is connected with the wheel, the stick and the rest, so
the attributes of the soul, viz. ‘being an agent’, ‘being an enjoyer’
and the rest, are found to belong to it, only when it is connected with
the body, the sense-organs, etc. and not when it is devoid of attributes,
since it is impossible for it then to be the realizing agent,—one who
is approaching a goal. After that, the qualities of a sentient being,
like: ‘being an agent’, ‘being a realizing agent who is approaching
towards a goal’ and so on, implied by its quality of ‘being an enjoyer’
are stated. Immediately after, the liability of a non-knower, whose
sense-organs are unrestrained, to transmigratory existence, and the
fitness of a knower, whose sense-organs are restrained, for the place
of Viṣṇu are designated; and then the place of Viṣṇu is pointed out
as the object to be reached. Immediately after this, Scripture goes
on to declare those objects which have superiority to others, in so
far as these latter are to be controlled, in the passage: ‘Higher than
the sense-organs are the objects of senses, higher than the objects is the
mind, higher than the mind is intellect, higher than intellect is the
great soul. Higher than the great (mahat) is the unmanifest (avyakta),
higher than the unmanifest is the Person (puruṣa), nothing is higher

[Sū. 1. 4. 1.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 215
than the Person, He is the goal, the highest course ’ (Kaṭha 3.10 ;
3 11). Here, the objects, designated before as the lord of the chariot
and the rest, are mentioned irrespective of the simile ¹ for the sake
of making the intended meaning clear ² And the soul and the rest,
metaphorically represented as the lord of the chariot and so on, are
here referred to by those very terms (‘soul’ and so on) respectively;
and the body, metaphorically represented as the chariot, being left
over, is denoted by the term ‘unmanifest’ ³. Thus, the objects of
senses, metaphorically represented as the roads, are ‘higher than’,
i. e. superior to, the sense-organs, metaphorically represented as the
horses, in so far as these latter are to be controlled, since when in
proximity to objects of senses, the sense-organs of even a self-controlled
man are found to incline to them once more. Higher than those even
is the mind, metaphorically represented as the reins, since the proximity
to objects of sense too is of little avail if the mind be not inclined to
them. Higher than that even is intellect, metaphorically represented
as the charioteer, since the mind, too, is of little avail in the absence
of apprehension Higher than that even is the soul, metaphorically
represented as the lord of the chariot, because of its superiority as
an agent. Since all these depend upon its will, it alone is specified
as the ‘great’. Higher than that even is the body, metaphorically
represented as the chariot, since all the activities of the individual
soul in connection with all the means to salvation depend on the
body. Higher than that even is the Person, the soul of all and the
end of the road of transmigratory existence, since everything else,
mentioned previously, are under His control. When He is won by

¹ A krama is a kind of simile in which the comparisons exhibited correspond
to each other in regular succession. M. W., p. 319, Col. 2.
² That is, in order that the intended meaning may be clearly conveyed to
the reader, the metaphorical way of representation, resorted to above, is given
up here, and the actual objects, the sense-organs and the rest, are directly and
plainly stated.
³ The argument is as follows : In Kaṭha 3.3–3.9 the soul, the body and the
rest, are successively compared to the lord of a chariot, a chariot and so on,
while in Kaṭha 3 10–3 11 the same objects, viz. the soul and so on, are mentioned
once more, not metaphorically, but directly and plainly. Now in these latter
verses, the soul, etc. are denoted by those very words, only there is no actual
mention of the body. Hence, when everything else fits in, the body, the only
remaining one on this side, must be denoted by the term ‘unmanifest’, the only
remaining one on that side

[SŪ. 1. 4 1.
216 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.]
means of meditation, as directed, all the ends of a man are accomplished,
as declared by the passage: ‘Whatever verily, be the means resorted
to for the sake of the four ends of a man, a man, who has taken refuge
in Nārāyaṇa, attains them without it’. Hence, here the mahat, an
effect of pradhāna, is not understood by the term ‘great’; nor pradhāna,
its cause, by the term ‘unmanifest’, nor puruṣa, admitted by the
Sāṁkhyas, the twenty-fifth principle in contrast to the twenty-four
material ones, by the term ‘Person’ The entire Veda is in con-
cordance with regard to this very Person, the object which one should
desire to enquire into, and an ocean of infinite, auspicious attributes,
there being nothing higher than Him, in accordance with the scrip-
tural text: ‘There is nothing higher than the Person’ (Kaṭha 3.11),
the Smṛti passage. ‘There is nothing else higher than me, O Dhanañ-
jaya’ (Gītā 7.7). The Person alone is the object to be attained, in
accordance with the scriptural text: ‘That is the goal, that is the
highest course’ (Kaṭha 3.11), as well as with the declaration by the
interpreter of the texts (viz. Nimbārka): ‘There is no other goal except
the lotus-feet of Kṛṣṇa’ (D.Ś. 8a).
Having shown that the Supreme Person is difficult to be attained
by one who is not self-controlled, while easy to be attained by one
who is self-controlled, and having shown the mode of subduing the
sense-organs, the text “shows”, in the concluding portion, that what
had appeared previously in the simile is understood here, (and not the
Sāṁkhya pradhāna), thus. ‘This soul, hidden in all beings, is not
manifest, but is perceived by subtle seers through highest, subtle
intellect. A wise man should restrain speech in the mind, that he
should restrain in the intelligent soul, the intelligent soul in the great,
that he should restrain in the tranquil soul’ (Kaṭha 3 12-3.13).
(The text means:) ‘This’, i.e. Vāsudeva,—omniscient, to be approached
by the freed souls, and without an equal or a superior, as stated in the
text: ‘There is nothing higher than the Person, that is the goal, that
is the highest course’ (Kaṭha 3 11),—though present in all beings,
‘is not manifest’, i.e. is not perceived by all, since they are not entitled
to perceive Him. For this very reason, He is ‘hidden’,—the com-
pound (viz. ‘gūṛdho’ tmā’) is in accordance with Vedic use,—as
declared by the Lord Himself: ‘“I am not manifest to all”’ (Gītā
7.25). If one is entitled to perceive the Lord, then alone He comes
to be perceived; hence it is said ‘is perceived’ and so on. All the
sense-organs, implied by the term ‘speech’, should be restrained in the

[SŪ 1. 4. 2.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 217
mind,—the long vowel (ī in 'manasī') is in accordance with Vedic use ;
the mind in the intelligent soul, i e in intellect, since 'being intelligent'
and 'being the soul' are possible on the part of intellect, owing to its
connection with the individual soul, intelligence in the great soul,
i e. in the individual soul; and that in the tranquil, i.e. in Brahman,
the Universal Cause. The sense is that if in the previous case (viz.
Katha 3.11), because of understanding ¹ the principle 'mahat' by
the term 'great', we understand its cause,—viz. pradhāna which is
derived from inference,—by the term 'unmanifest' on the ground of
its immediate proximity to it, then, here, too, that may be understood
by the term 'great', and hence (the injunction :) 'One should restrain
the great in the tranquil' should lead to undesired conclusions ².
Hence the concluding text, too, shows that what had previously
appeared in the simile of the body is understood here
SŪTRA 2
"BUT THE SUBTLE (BODY IS DENOTED BY THE TERM 'UNMANIFEST')
BECAUSE OF ITS FITNESS (TO BE DENOTED SO)"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be said that the word "unmanifest" denotes something
subtle,—(we reply it may denote the body too,) since the body too,
the meaning (of the term "unmanifest"), is a grosser state of something
subtle indeed.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected : Although the subtle body is fit to be denoted
by the term "unmanifest" since in the simile of the chariot the parts
of the subtle body (viz. the sense-organs, the mind, etc.) ³ are under-
stood as the parts of the chariot (viz. the horses, the reins, etc.), yet
it cannot be said to be the chariot, On the contrary, it is the gross
body which has been put down as the chariot. But how can it be
understood by the term "unmanifest", it being something manifest ?
¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason.
² That is, in that case the mahat would be dependent on Brahman, a conclu-
sion which is contrary to the Sāṁkhya view itself.
³ The constituents of the subtle body are the five tan-mātras, the ten sense-
organs, the mind, and the vital-breath. Vide V.R.M.P. 30.

218 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 4. 3.
ADH. 1.]
We reply. The word "but" implies emphasis The body is the
gross effect, pradhāna is the subtle cause, and that alone is to be
understood; so the term "unmanifest" may very well refer to it. Why?
"Because of its fitness", i.e. because of the fitness of the subtle
pradhāna to assume the form of the effect, or because of the fitness of
the effect to assume the form of the cause. Just as in the text: 'All
this verily, is Brahman, emanating from Him, disappearing into Him
and breathing in Him' (Chānd. 3.14.1), the universe, though different
from Brahman as His effect, having been emanated from Him, is yet
declared to be non-different from Him, so is this body, which is non-
different from pradhāna.
Or else, (an alternative explanation;) because of the fitness of that
word "unmanifest", denoting the cause, to denote the effect too ¹,
as in the example: 'Mix the soma with cows' (Ṛg. V. 9.46.4 ²).
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja
Interpretation of 'tad arhatvāt' different, viz. because the
unmanifest matter alone, when it has assumed the form of the effect
(viz. body), is fit to undertake activities, promoting the end of men,
like a chariot ³
SŪTRA 3
"(PRADHĀNA) HAS A MEANING ON ACCOUNT OF (ITS) DEPENDENCE
ON HIM."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Pradhāna, taught in the Upaniṣads, "has a meaning on account
of its dependence" on the Supreme Cause; while that admitted by
others is meaningless, such is the distinction (between our pradhāna
and that of others, viz. of the Sāṁkhyas).
¹ The argument is that the cause and the effect being non-different, a term
denoting the one, can very well denote the other. Hence the term 'unmanifest',
denoting pradhāna, the cause, can denote the body, its effect as well.
² P. 203, line 16. That is, the Soma is to be mixed, not with the cow, the
cause, but with the milk, its effect Here a word, denoting the cause, really
stands for the effect.
³ Śrī. B 1.4.2, p. 357, Chap. 1.

{SŪ. 1. 4. 3. VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 219
ADH. 1.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. In that case, be happy by falling in with
the Sāṁkhyas, since you admit the doctrine of the causality of pra-
dhāna,—the author replies here
In ordinary experience, a non-sentient object, having no connec-
tion with a sentient principle, can have no meaning, incapable as it is
of giving rise to an effect Never does a lump of clay assume the form
of a pot by itself. Similarly, pradhāna, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas,
having no connection with a sentient principle and itself non-sentient,
is not able to give rise to effects; hence, it is simply meaningless.
Pradhāna, taught in the Upanisads, on the other hand, "has a mean-
ing". That has a meaning which serves the 'meaning', or the purpose,
of giving rise to all effects, beginning with the mahat and ending with
a tuft of grass. Why? "On account of (its) dependence on Him" ¹
That which is dependent on Him, i e. on Brahman or Lord Vāsudeva,
sentient and the Supreme Cause, is 'tad-adhīna', viz. pradhāna, the
state of being that (tad-adhīnatva), on account of that (tad-adhī-
natvāt).
But the dependence of pradhāna on Brahman is not like the
dependence of atoms on Īśvara, as held by the logicians, but is due
to the relation between a power and the possessor of the power,²
as established by the scriptural text like: 'The own power of the
Deity, hidden by his own qualities' (Śvet. 1 3) and so on. The
scriptural texts, establishing pradhāna as taught in the Upaniṣads,
have been quoted above.³
COMPARISON
Bhāskara
He gives two alternative explanations of the sūtra, the first of
which tallies with the explanation given by Nimbārka. The second
is as follows: 'But (the subtle causal body is designated as) subtle
(in reference to the gross body), because of the fitness (of the word
"unmanifest" to denote it)' (Sūtra 2) ('Bondage and release) have
meaning as dependent on it (viz. the subtle body)' (Sūtra 3) ⁴.
1 The compound 'tad-adhīnatvāt' is to be explained as follows.
2 That is, not an external and accidental relation, but an internal and
essential one.
3 Vide e.g. V.K. 1.1.1. ⁴ Bh B. 1.4.3, p 73.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 4-5.
220 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.]
Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different, viz '(The soul, the body and the rest)
have a meaning as dependent on Him (viz. the Lord)'.¹
SŪTRA 4
' ALSO BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATEMENT OF (ITS)
BEING AN OBJECT TO BE KNOWN.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The word 'unmanifest' does not denote pradhāna of the Tān-
trikas (i e. the Sāṁkhyas), "also because of the absence of any state-
ment of its being an object to be known "
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason also pradhāna is not denoted by the term 'un-
manifest' here. Why ? "Because of the absence of any statement
of its being an object to be known." The Sāṁkhyas, incoherently
prattling that salvation arises from a right discrimination between
prakṛti (= matter) and puruṣa (= soul), say that with a view to
the attainment of salvation, prakṛti, too, should be known by one
desiring for salvation. But pradhāna is not mentioned by the Kathas
as an object to be known, there being the mention of the word 'un-
manifest' simply.
SŪTRA 5
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (SCRIPTURE) SPEAKS (OF PRADHĀNA
AS AN OBJECT TO BE KNOWN), (WE REPLY:) NO, FOR THE INTELLI-
GENT SOUL (IS THE OBJECT TO BE KNOWN), ON ACCOUNT OF THE
TOPIC.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that the text: 'By discerning him, who is without
beginning, without end, higher than the great (mahat) eternal, one is
delivered from the jaws of death' (Kaṭha 3.15 ²), "speaks" of
pradhāna as an object to be known,—
¹ ŚK. B. 1.1.3., p. 514, Part 6.
² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B

[SŪ. 1. 4. 6.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 221
(We reply :) ‘No’. “The intelligent soul”, i.e. the Supreme Soul,
is here indicated as the object to be known, He being the “topic”
Vedānta-kaustubha
It may be objected: The following text “speaks” of pradhāna
as an object to be known, viz.. ‘What is without sound, without
touch, without form, unchangeable, likewise without taste, constant,
and without odour, without beginning, without end, higher than the
great (mahat), eternal, by discerning that, one is delivered from the
jaws of death’ (Katha 3.15). It means that ‘by discerning’, i.e.
by knowing, pradhāna,—the cause of and higher than ‘the great’,
i.e. than the principle mahat, the second principle called buddhi,
and an effect of pradhāna,—one is delivered from the jaws of death,
i.e. from the jaws of mundane existence.
(We reply :) “No”, “for the intelligent soul” alone is indicated
here as the object to be discerned. Why ? “On account of the
topic”, i.e. because the Supreme Soul is the topic here, as evident
from the texts: ‘That supreme place of Viṣṇu’ (Katha 3.9), ‘Nothing
is higher than the Person’ (Katha 3.11), ‘The soul, hidden in all
beings, is not manifest’ (Katha 3.12) and so on. And by the phrase:
‘Higher than the great (mahat)’, the superiority of the Supreme Soul
to the individual soul,—mentioned previously in the passage: ‘Higher
than buddhi is the great soul’ (Katha 3.10),—is denoted.
—————
SŪTRA 6
“AND THUS THERE ARE STATEMENT AS WELL AS QUESTION ABOUT
THREE ALONE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
That in this Upaniṣad, “there are statement as well as question
about three”,—viz. the means, the end, and the realizing agent,—is
known from a consideration of the meaning of the prior and later
texts. Here, there is no room for determining a principle which is
derived from inference (viz. pradhāna).

[SŪ. 1. 4. 6.
222 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
Here pradhāna cannot be understood by the term 'unmanifest',
since here in the Kaṭha-valli, "there is statement about three alone",—
viz. the Supreme Soul, the worship of Him, and the worshipper,—
as the objects to be designated, "as well as question" about them as
the objects to be known, but not about pradhāna and the rest, estab-
lished by the Sāṁkhya-tantra. Thus, when three boons were promised
to Naciketas by Death with the words: ' "Since you have passed three
days in my house without eating, O Brāhmaṇa, a guest to be saluted,
salute to you, O Brāhmaṇa, may it be well with me, therefore choose
three boons for each (night)' " (Kaṭha 1.9), the former asked for the
propitiation of his father as the first boon thus: ' "May Gautama be
tranquil-minded, well-disposed, with anger appeased towards me,
O Death! May he cheerfully greet me, when dismissed by you,—
thus I choose as the first boon among the three' " (Kaṭha 1.10) Then,
being granted the propitiation of his father with the words: ' "Aud-
dālaka Āruni, dismissed by me ¹, will be cheerful as before, he will
sleep happily at nights, with his anger appeased' " (Kaṭha 1.11) and
so on, he asked for the knowledge of fire, called Naciketas, and a
means to salvation, thus: ' "You know, O Death, the heavenly fire;
tell it to me, who has faith. Those who live in the heaven-world
partake of immortality—this I ask as the second boon' " (Kaṭha 1.13).
The construction of the above text is as follows: 'O Death!' 'You
know', i.e. remember and know, the 'heavenly fire', i.e. the fire
which leads to salvation. So 'tell that to me', desirous as I am of
salvation. I choose as the second boon that knowledge of the fire,
whereby 'those who live in the heaven-world', i.e. those to whom
belong the heaven-world, viz. the world to be approached by the freed
souls through the path beginning with light as stated in the fourth
chapter ², or the Vedāntins, 'partake of', i.e. attain, 'immortality'
or salvation. Here the word 'heaven' applies to salvation equally,
this being well-known from other texts as well, such as, 'The world
of heaven is a golden sheath, covered with light', 'The knowers of
Brahman go to Brahman, to the world of heaven' (Bṛh. 4.4.8 ³)
¹ That is, commanded by me. Vide Ś.B on Kaṭha: 'Matprasṛṣṭaḥ mayā
anujñātaḥ san'.
² Vide Br. Sū. 4.3.1 et seq.
³ Correct quotation: 'Tena dhīrāḥ apiyanti brahma-vidaḥ svargaṁ lokam'.
Vide Bṛh 4.4.8, p. 237.

[SŪ 1. 4. 6.
ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 223
and so on. Then, having obtained the knowledge of the fire, taught
thus · ‘ “I tell it to you, learn it from me, knowing the heavenly fire,
O Naciketas ! The attainment of the infinite world, and the support’ ”
(Kaṭha 1 14) and so on, he,—by means of a question regarding the
real nature of salvation, characterized by the attainment of the
Supreme Soul, the highest end of men,—asked, as the third boon,
about the real nature of the object to be attained, the real nature of
the attainer and the real nature of meditation, the means, thus:
“ ‘When a man is dead there is this doubt, some saying that he is,
others that he is not. This may I know, taught by you, this is the
third among the boons’ ” (Kaṭha 1.20) Thus, when the real nature
of salvation was asked thus, the reply given by Yama, preceded by an
examination of Naciketas's fitness for that teaching, was as follows:
“ ‘Him, who is difficult to be seen, who is hidden, who has entered
within, who is hidden in the cave and who dwells in the abyss, by
knowing Him as God through the knowledge of the Yoga relating to
the soul, a wise man discards joy and sorrow’ ” (Kaṭha 2 12)
Having been thus taught, in a general manner, Naciketas with a
view to understanding clearly the real nature of the object to be
attained, indicated by the word ‘God’, the real nature of the means,
viz. knowledge, demonstrated by the phrase ‘by knowing’, and the
real nature of the attainer, demonstrated by the words ‘wise man’,
once more asked about meditation, different from means like merit
and demerit, thus: “ ‘Different from the right, different from the
non-right’ ” (Kaṭha 2.14); about the object to be approached, not
limited by time, thus “ ‘Different from what has been done and what
has not been done, different from what has been and what will be’ ”
(Kaṭha 2.14); and also about the attainer, as this latter question is
a question about the attainer, the sentient being as well, the latter,
too, being eternal and included among the objects to be attained.¹
Or else, this text is concerned with a question about the object
to be approached. Like the co-ordination of the two words ‘different’,
mentioned in the text “ ‘Different from the right, different from non-
right’ ” (Kaṭha 2.14), there is also a co-ordination between the two
words ‘different’, mentioned subsequently, and so in this question

¹ That is, the last portion of Kaṭha 2 14 is a question about both Brahman,
the object to be attained, and the individual soul, the attainer, since the latter,
too, is eternal and an object to be attained like the former.

[sū. 1. 4. 6.
224 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.]
about the object to be approached, the approaching agent and of the
means too have been included; and hence really no less than three
questions were asked ¹
Then, having praised the pranava by way of demonstrating
Brahman; having depicted the real nature of the attainer, denoted by
the praṇava, and the real nature of the means, denoting the pranava;
and having taught the pranava once more, Yama taught the real
nature of the attainer, in the passage: ‘ “A wise man is neither born,
nor dies. He has not arisen from anything, has not become anything.
Unborn, eternal, constant is this ancient one, who is not killed when
the body is killed” ’ (Katha 2.18); the real nature of the object to be
attained, in the passage beginning: ‘ “Smaller than the small, greater
than the great is the soul placed in the cave (i e heart) of this creature.
Him one who is free from active will sees, freed from sorrow, through
the grace of the Creator, (and) the glory of the soul” ’ (Katha 2 20),
and ending: ‘ “Who knows thus” ? ’ (Katha 2.25), and meditation
that is of the form of devotion, in the middle in the passage: ‘ “This
soul is not attainable by the study of the Veda” ’ (Katha 2.23) and
so on. Then, having stated that the Supreme Soul is easily attainable
¹ The entire passage is.
‘Anyatra dharmād anyatra adharmād anyatra asmāt kṛtākṛtāt.
Anyatra bhūtāc ca bhavyāc ca yat tat paśyasi tad vada’ (Kaṭha 2 14).
The author is here trying to show that this is not a question about a single
thing, but about three different things, viz Brahman, the individual soul, and
the means to salvation.
He offers two explanations.
(a) The portion: ‘Different from the right and different from the non-
right’ refers to the means, viz. knowledge, different from ordinary merit and
demerit. And, the portion: ‘Different from what has been done and what has
not been done, different from what has been and what will be’ refers equally
to Brahman and the individual soul, to both of whom, who are eternal, the above
description fittingly applies. Hence the above question means: Tell me about
(1) the means, (2) the individual soul and (3) Brahman.
(b) The whole text is really a question about Brahman, but includes questions
about the other two as well. Thus, the portion ‘different from the right . .’
means ‘who is different from the means’; and the portion ‘different from what
has been done . . . ’ means, ‘who is different from the individual soul’.
Hence the above question means: Tell me about (1) Brahman, who is different
from (2) the means and (3) the individual soul. As such it is really a question
about the last two as well.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 7.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 225
by the individual soul,—since the Person worshipped and the wor-
shipper have entered into the same cave (Kaṭha 3.1 ¹),—and the
mode of worship, as well as the attainment of the place of Viṣṇu by
the worshipper, in the passage which begins: '"Know the soul to be
a lord of chariot"' (Kaṭha 3.3), and ends. '"This the wise declare"'
(Kaṭha 3 14), he concluded with the words: '"Invisible"' (Kaṭha
3.15) and so on. Hence, this Upaniṣad contains a statement about
the three alone as the objects to be known, as well as a question about
them; there is no reference to pradhāna, established by the Tantra,
(viz the Sāṁkhyas).
SŪTRA 7
"AND AS IN THE CASE OF THE GREAT"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Just as, although the word 'great' (mahat) has been applied by
the Sāṁkhyas to the second principle called 'buddhi', yet it is found
applied elsewhere as well in Vedic texts like, 'I know this great Person'
(Vj S. 18 12 ²; Śvet. 3.8),—so the word 'unmanifest' (avyakta) may
refer to the body.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Just as the word 'great', mentioned in the Veda, is applied to the
individual soul and to Brahman,—as in the passages. 'Higher than
intellect is the great soul' (Kaṭha 3.10), 'The soul which is great and
all-pervading' (Kaṭha 2.22, 4.4) and so on,—and not to the second
principle, called buddhi, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, and cannot be
applied elsewhere even by a hundred Sāṁkhyas, so it is established
that the word 'unmanifest' as well, being mentioned in the Veda,
does not apply to pradhāna, but denotes the body.
Here ends the section entitled 'What is derived from
inference' (1).
¹ Vide Br. Sū. 1.2.11-12.
² P 857, line 10.
Ś, Bh.
15

[SŪ. 1. 4 8.
226 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 2.]
Adhikarana 2: The section entitled 'The cup'.
(Sūtras 8-10)
SŪTRA 8
" (THE WORD 'UNBORN' DOES NOT DENOTE THE SĀṂKHYA PRAKṚTI)
ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SPECIFICATION, AS IN THE CASE OF THE CUP."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
On the prima facie view, viz. Let prakṛti, mentioned in the sacred
text: 'One unborn female (ajā)' (Śvet 4 5 ¹), be the one established
in (the Sāṃkhya) Smṛti, the author indicates the right conclusion.
The unborn one, mentioned in the sacred text, must have Brahman
for its soul ², because there is no specification guaranteeing the prima
facie view ³, as in the case of the cup, mentioned in the sacred text.
'There is a cup with its mouth below' (Bṛh 2 2.3 ⁴).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, it has been shown that in the Kaṭha-vallī pradhāna, which
is not mentioned in the Veda, is not denoted by the term 'unmanifest',
as it, through denoting the cause, viz pradhāna which is mentioned
in the Veda, denotes its effect, viz. the body It has also been shown
that as pradhāna has Brahman for its soul, the text, thereby, refers
to Brahman In a like manner, it is being shown now that the text
about the unborn one, too, refers to Brahman alone.
In the Mantropaniṣad of the Śvetāśvataras, we find the following:
'By an unborn female (ajā),⁵ red, black and white, bringing forth
manifold offspring of a like nature, there lies an unborn male (aja)⁶,
enjoying. Another unborn male (aja) leaves her who has been en-
joyed' (Śvet. 4.5). A doubt arises, viz. whether in this sacred
text prakṛti, established by the Sāṃkhya-smṛti, is recognized by the
term 'unborn one' (ajā), or whether the meaning of the sacred text

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
² I.e. be dependent on Brahman.
³ I.e. There is nothing here to guarantee us in selecting pradhāna of the
opponents as the unborn one
⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B
⁵ 'Ajā' means a she-goat, too, cf. Ś.B. 1.4.10, p. 404
⁶ 'Aja' means a he-goat also.

[SŪ 1. 4. 8.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 227
is prakṛti, having Brahman for its soul On the prima facie view,
viz The 'unborn one', etymologically derived as 'one who is not
born', self-supporting; independently bringing forth, by nature,
offspring of a like nature; consisting in the three guṇas; the cause of
the distinction between bondage and release; and admitted by the
Sāṃkhyas, should be understood to be mentioned by the sacred text
as well.
We reply: The 'unborn one', which has Brahman for its soul,
is mentioned by the sacred text. Why? "On account of non-
specification", i.e. because there is no special circumstance for under-
standing pradhāna which is derived from inference. Our (i e.
Upaniṣadic) (prakṛti), too, is unborn. Since a scriptural text is authori-
tative only in reference to its own explicit meaning, i.e. only in refer-
ence to what it actually states, a self-supporting one is not recognized
here, because the word 'self-supporting' is found nowhere, and also
because it is impossible for a non-sentient object to have an independent
existence. An example illustrating the absence of any specification,
such as. 'This is so', with regard to a common term, is given in the
words "As in the case of a cup". In the text: 'There is a cup with
its mouth below, and bottom above' (Bṛh. 2.2.3), the word 'cup'
(camasa) conveys only the idea of an implement used in eating, in
accordance with the etymology (A 'camasa' is that) whereby one
drinks (camyate anena), and so no accurate specific determination,
that a cup (camasa) is such, is possible, on account of non-specification,
—(the marks of) having the mouth below and the rest being possible
elsewhere too ¹ Similarly, in the sacred text under discussion also,
there can be no specifying out that this prakṛti, simply because it is
unborn, is the one established by the Sāṃkhya-smṛti.

¹ I.e in the above text about the 'ajā', there are no special marks which
justify us in selecting out the Sāṃkhya prakṛti here out of other possible meanings
of the term 'ajā', just as in the text about the 'camasa', there are no special
marks for fixing what exactly a camasa denotes here, until we are told specifically
in the complementary passage that it denotes the head.