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

[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.

228 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 4. 9.
ADH. 2 ]
SŪTRA 9
“ BUT (THE UNBORN ONE IS) THAT WHICH HAS LIGHT (I.E. BRAH-
MAN) FOR ITS BEGINNING (I.E. CAUSE), FOR THUS SOME READ.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that in the sacred text about the cup (camasa),
it is known from the complementary text: ‘It is the head’ (Bṛh.
2.2.3) that the cup is the head ; now what is the convincing reason for
understanding a particular meaning in the sacred text about the
unborn one ?—
We reply: That of which “light”, ie Brahman, is the “begin-
ning”, i.e. cause, is here denoted by the sacred text about the unborn
one, for “thus” alone “some read”, viz. ‘From him arose Brahma,
name, form and food’ (Muṇḍ 1.1.9).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Just as from the complementary passage: ‘This is the head, for
there is a cup with its mouth below’ (Bṛh 2.2.3), it is known that
nothing but the head is the cup, so there is no ground here for specifying
out the unborn one, established by the Sāṁkhyas. On the contrary,
that unborn one which has Brahman for its soul is to be understood
in the sacred text about the unborn one (Śvet. 4.5), on the ground
of prior and later texts,—so holds the author.
The term “but” implies certainty. Prakṛti, “which has light
for its beginning”, is to be understood definitely in the sacred text
about the unborn one The compound: “which has light for its
beginning” means: That of which the ‘beginning’, i.e. the instituting
cause, is ‘light’, i.e. Brahman, celebrated in scriptural texts like:
‘That the gods worship as the light of lights’ (Bṛh. 4.4.16), ‘Now
the light which shines higher than this heaven’ (Chānd. 3.13.7)
and so on,—i.e. it should be understood to be that which has Brahman
for its soul. In the Veda, the peculiar nature, qualities and the rest
of Brahman alone being specially determined, no other topic has been
dealt with; and hence, that alone which has Brahman for its cause
is to be understood. The sense is Beginning: ‘The speakers of Brah-
man say: “what is the cause”?’ (Śvet 1.1) and so on, and rejecting
the views of those who take time to be the first cause, of the Bauddhas,
the Mīmāṁsakas, the Jains and the logicians, suggested in the passage.

[sū. 1. 4. 9.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 229
'Time, nature, destiny, accident' (Śvet. 1 2), the text goes on:
'Those, following meditation and concentration, saw God's self-power,
hidden by His own qualities' (Śvet. 1 3). On account of this intro-
ductory text, in the sacred text about the unborn one (Śvet. 4 5),
that unborn one alone which has been established by the Veda and
which a power of Brahman,—the cause of the Universe and denoted
by words like 'light' and the rest,—is to be understood, since subse-
quently also in the passages: 'From this, the Māyin creates this
universe, and in it the other is bound up with Māyā' (Śvet 4.9),
'But let one know prakṛti to be Māyā, and the Great Lord to be the
Māyin' (Śvet. 4.10), 'The One, who rules over every source' (Śvet.
4 11) and so on, that alone which has Brahman for its soul is estab-
lished. For that very reason, it is declared in the same Upaniṣad
that although this, as a power, is different from the possessor of powers,
yet it is non-different from Brahman, because of having no existence
and activity apart from the possessor of powers, thus: 'On knowing
the enjoyer, the object enjoyed and the Mover, all has been said, this
is the three-fold Brahman' (Śvet. 1.12). Here, the enjoyer is the
individual soul, denoted by the term 'higher prakṛti'; the object
enjoyed is the non-sentient in its causal and effected states, denoted
by the term 'lower prakṛti', and the Mover is the Highest Person,
possessing the two prakṛtis, and denoted by the term 'Brahman'.
Thus, the phrase: 'All is this Brahman' establishes the non-difference
of Brahman and the two prakṛtis, the objects to be controlled,—since
the existence and activity of the latter two depend on their Controller,
—in spite of there being a difference of nature between them and the
Lord.
With a view to confirming that unborn one which is mentioned
in the Veda, by that very Veda, the author establishes this once more
in the words: "For thus some read"; that means, because thus some
schools, i.e the Ātharvaṇikas, "read" in the Muṇḍakopaniṣad that
this unborn one has Brahman for its soul: 'From him arose Brahmā,
name, form and food' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9); and because it is declared by
the Lord Himself, in the passage: '"My womb is the great Brahman.
In it I place the germ"' (Gītā 14.3). In the Taittirīyaka, too, having
introduced Brahman in the passage: 'Smaller than the small' (Mahā-
nār. 6.3 ¹), having, then, designated the origin of the entire universe,
¹ This verse occurs also in Kaṭha 2.20 and Śvet. 3 20.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 10.
230 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 2 ]
implied by the vital-breath, in the passage. ‘Seven vital breaths arise
from him’ (Mahānār. 8 4), the text goes on to read after that ‘By
an unborn female, red, white and black, bringing forth manifold
offspring of a like nature, lies an unborn male, enjoying. Another
unborn male discards her, who has been enjoyed’ (Mahānār 9 2)
And since this sacred text is to be taken as referring to prakṛti, which
has Brahman for its soul, and since here, too, the same must inevitably
be the case, that prakṛti alone which has Brahman for its soul is the
object to be established by the sacred text about the unborn one.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
The interpretation of ‘jyotir-upakramā’ different, viz. ‘(The
unborn one is) the beginning (i.e. the material cause) of light (i.e.
of the four kinds of material objects, consisting in light, i.e. fire,
water, and so on)’.¹
SŪTRA 10
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF THE FASHIONING (OF
THE UNIVERSE), THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION, AS IN THE CASE OF
THE HONEY (-MEDITATION)”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
No contradiction is involved in taking one and the same substra-
tum of qualities as unborn and having, at the same time, Brahman
for its material cause. On account of the teaching of the creation of
the universe from Brahman, the cause of the world and possessing
subtle powers, both fit in, “as in the case of the honey-meditation”.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. How can an unborn one be something
generated, the author replies:
The word “and” is for disposing of the objection. There is no
contradiction in taking an unborn one as something generated. Why?
“On account of the teaching of fashioning.” The word “fashioning”
¹ Ś.B. 1.4 9, p. 402.

[sū. 1. 4. 10.
ADH. 2] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 231
means making or creation, on account of the teaching of that ¹, i.e.
on account of the teaching of the creation of the universe from Brah-
man, possessing subtle powers, in the passage : ‘From this, the Māyin
creates this universe’ (Śvet 4 9). The unmanifest prakṛti, subtle
in form and a power of Brahman, is said to be unborn because of being
non-different from Brahman as His power That very same prakṛti,
emanated from the possessor of powers or Brahman and abiding in
the form of effects, is said to have Brahman for its beginning or cause,
and hence there is no contradiction Here the author states a parallel
case in the words. “ As in the case of the honey-meditation ” In
the honey-meditation,² which begins ‘Verily, this sun is the honey of
the gods’ (Chānd 3 1 1), in the concluding text: ‘Then, having
risen up from thence, it will neither rise nor set, it will remain alone
in the middle’ (Chānd 3.11.1), the very same thing, which in its
causal state abides in a subtle form and is not, as such, designable
as honey, is, in its effected state, imagined to be the honey, enjoyable
by gods like Vasu and the rest, and to be possessed of rising and setting,
without giving rise to any contradiction Similarly, the very same
eternally existent prakṛti is designated by the sacred text in its causal
form in relation to the bondage and release of the eternally existent
individual soul. Here, the individual soul, indicated by the term:
‘unborn one’ (ajā),—eternal by nature, carried away by the current
of beginningless karmas, and hence devoid of a true knowledge of
the real nature of itself or of the Supreme Being,—having identified
itself through nescience with the bodies, such as of men, gods and the
rest which are the evolutes of prakṛti, lies by, enjoying sounds and the
rest, the parts of prakṛti; such a one, devoid of the bliss of Brahman,
is said to be ‘bound’. But one, who having attained by chance the
grace of the Lord through humbleness and the like, and having
attained the bliss of Brahman by means of the repetition of the
means,—‘hearing’ (śravaṇa) and the rest of the Vedānta,—learnt
from a holy spiritual preceptor, discards prakṛti, is said to be ‘freed’.
If in accordance with the etymology: ‘An unborn one (ajā) is one that
is not born’, it is said that the unborn one is not prakṛti, eternally
existent and having Brahman for its soul, then the conventional dis-
tinction between the bondage and release of the created souls cannot
¹ This explains the compound: ‘kalpanopadeśāt’.
² Vide V.K. 1.3.31–33. See footnote 1, p. 193.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 11.
232 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.]
be explained by the non-sentient pradhāna, devoid of any connection
with Brahman. Hence it is established that the unborn one, men-
tioned in the sacred text, has Brahman for its soul.
Here ends the section entitled ‘The cup’ (2)
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different: viz ‘On account of the teaching of an
imagination (i.e. a metaphor); there is no contradiction’. That is,
the word ‘ajā’ here does not stand for one who is literally unborn,
but simply metaphorically represents prakṛti, the source of all things,
as a she-goat, just as the sun, though not really honey, is metapho-
rically represented as such in the Chāndogya ¹
Adhikarana 3. The section entitled ‘The
collection of number’. (Sūtras 11—13)
SŪTRA 11
“NOT ON ACCOUNT OF THE COLLECTION OF NUMBER EVEN, ON
ACCOUNT OF DIVERSITY, AND ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“Even on account of the collection of number” in the text ‘In
whom the five people and the ether are based’ (Bṛh. 4 4 17 ; Śat. Br.
14.7 2.19 ²), it is not to be said that the twenty-five principles, begin-
ning with pradhāna, are based on Scripture, so what dispute can there
be regarding the knowability of one pradhāna from Scripture? ³
Why? “On account of diversity,” i e because the objects which
are based on Brahman, established in Scripture and denoted by the
¹ Ś.B. 1 1.10, pp. 404-5. Bh. B. 1 1 10, p. 75. Cf. Rāmānuja’s criticism
of this interpretation.
² P. 1090, line 3. Ś. R, Bh, ŚK, B.
³ That is, all the twenty-five principles of the Sāṁkhyas can be known from
Scripture, not to speak of pradhāna alone.

[sū. 1. 4. 11.
ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 233
term ‘in whom’, are different from the objects established in the Tantra
(i.e the Sāṁkhya-smṛti), since the former are found to have Brahman
for their soul; “and on account of the excess” of Brahman, the support,
and likewise of the ether
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the previous aphorism, it has been shown that the text about
the unborn one, not referable to pradhāna, as admitted by the Sāṁ-
khyas on the ground of texts like: ‘The self-power of the Deity’
(Śvet. 1 3), refers to Brahman on the ground that it refers to His
power, viz pradhāna, as admitted by the Vedāntins In the very
same manner, by showing that ¹ the text about the ‘five five-people’
refers to the vital-breath and the rest, based on Brahman, on the
ground of the pronoun (‘in whom’) and so on, leading to the nulli-
fication of the number admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, (viz twenty-five),
the reverend author of the aphorisms is confirming his contention
that pradhāna has never been mentioned in Scripture
In the sixth chapter ² of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, immediately after
the introduction: ‘That the gods worship as the light of lights, as
life, as immortality’ (Bṛh. 4.4.16, Śat. Br. 14 7.2.20 ³), we read
the following: ‘In whom the five five-people and the ether are based,
him alone I, the knower, the immortal, know as the soul, the immortal
Brahman’ (Bṛh. 4 4.17; Śat. Br 14.7 2.19). Here a doubt arises,
viz whether by the phrase; ‘five five-people’, meaning five groups of
five, the twenty-five principles, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, are
denoted, or the vital-breath and the rest, five in number and called
‘five-people’ (pañca-jana). The prima facie view is as follows: We get
here the twenty-five principles, mentioned in Scripture and determined
more specially in the Sāṁkhya-smṛti. In the Ṣaṣṭī-saṁhitā ⁴, we read
the following,—beginning: ‘Being struck ⁵ by the three kinds of sorrow,
(one undertakes) an enquiry into the cause of their removal’ (Sāṁ.
Kā. 1), and continuing: ‘The primal cause prakṛti is not an effect;
the seven objects beginning with the mahat are causes as well as
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason.
² Ought to be fourth chapter. ³ P 1090, line 5.
⁴ That is a Sāṁkhya treatise or a saṁhitā or treatise dealing with the sixty
ideas peculiar to the Sāṁkhyas.
⁵ Correct quotation: ‘abhighātāt’ which is translated here. Vide Sāṁ.
Kā. 1, p. 1.

[sū. 1. 4. 11.
234 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 3.]
effects; sixteen objects are effects (only), purusa is neither a cause
nor an effect' (Sāṁ Kā. 3¹)
With regard to it, we reply: "Not even on account of the collection
of number"; The word "even" implies possibility ² In spite of the
fact that the number twenty-five is found in this text, prakrti and the
rest have not Scripture as their authority. Why? "On account of
diversity", i.e. because the twenty-five principles, mentioned in Smṛti,
cannot be arranged in five groups of five each, they being of various
kinds. There can be numeration or grouping of objects only with
reference to a class, a common quality and so on, e.g. when we say:
'A group of five cows', 'a group of five learned men'. But here we
find no common cause for grouping five objects under each pentad.
In such cases as: 'seven are causes as well as effects', 'sixteen are
effects (only)' and so on, on the other hand, there do exist causes
for such groupings ³
Or, else (an alternative explanation of the word 'nānābhāvāt'),
'on account of the absence of plurality'. That is, all the objects
mentioned in the Vedānta having Brahman for their soul, there is no
absolute plurality, in accordance with the statement 'All this has
that for its soul' (Chānd 6.8 7, 6 9 4, 6.10.3–6 16.3), and also in
accordance with the teaching contained here, viz. 'In whom the five
five-people and the ether are based' (Bṛh 4.4.17) The sense is that
if the twenty-five principles, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, be accepted
here, then, they not having Brahman for their soul, plurality will
result, contradicting Scripture.
Or, rather, the principles, admitted by our opponents and inde-
pendent of Brahman, being distinct from those that are based on
Brahman, in accordance with the text: 'In whom the five five-people'
(Bṛh 4.4.17), "and on account of excess", there is not even the number
twenty-five here. On the contrary, "on account of the excess",
i.e. surplus, viz. the Supreme Soul, the support of all, indicated
¹ P. 4
² I.e. even if it be possible to understand here the number intended by the
Sāṁkhyas, still then the Sāṁkhya view cannot be said to be referred to here. It
will be shown later that it is not really even possible to understand here the
number twenty-five intended by the Samkhyas.
³ I.e. A group consists of a certain number of similar objects. But here
it is impossible to divide the twenty-five Sāṁkhya principles into five groups, each
containing five similar principles. Hence it cannot be said that 'five five-people'
means 5×5 = 25 principles of the Sāṁkhyas.

[sū. 1. 4. 12.
ADH 3.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 235
by the pronoun 'in whom', and the ether, twenty-five principles are
not denoted
The meaning of the text is as follows 'The gods worship that',
viz Brahman. What is that? 'That which is the light of lights',
i.e. of sun and the rest, 'life', i.e. the cause of the longevity of its
own devotees, 'immortal', i.e. the object to be attained during the
state of release, this is the sense of the introductory text (Bṛh.
4.4.16, etc). 'In whom', i.e. in Brahman, 'the five five-people are
based'. The compound 'five-people' (pañca-jana) is to be explained
in accordance with the rule. 'Words indicating a quarter or a number
are compounded (with words in the same case ¹) to designate a name
(and the compound is a tat-puruṣa)' (Pāṇ 2.1.50, SD. K 727 ²).
The word 'five-people' is here understood as a name, since the meaning
of the component parts (i.e. the number five) is not intended to be
designated. Just as by the expression 'seven sages' each of the
seven sages is denoted, so by the word 'five-people' as well. On the
enquiry: How many five-people are there? the adjective 'five'
is added.³ As Yājñavalkya says 'In whom the ether is based that
alone is Brahman, the support of all and immortal. He who knows
the Highest Self, to be approached by the freed, the soul, the cause
of all existence and activity, becomes immortal, so I think. He who
does not know Him does not become free'
SŪTRA 12
"(THE 'FIVE-PEOPLE' ARE) THE VITAL-BREATH AND THE REST,
ON ACCOUNT OF THE COMPLEMENTARY PASSAGE"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the complementary passage", viz. 'Those who
know the breath of breath, the eye of eye, the ear of ear, the food of
¹ In accordance with the previous Pāṇ.-sūtra 2.1.49.
² P. 509, vol. 1.
³ I.e. the expression 'five-people' denotes the name of a certain class of
beings, and the expression 'five five-people' denotes that there are five classes
of such beings, just as the expression 'seven sages' denotes a certain class of
sages, (i.e. stars) and the expression 'seven seven-sages' denotes that there are
seven classes of such beings. What these classes of beings called 'five-people' are
is indicated in the next sūtra.

[SŪ. 1 4. 13.
236 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 3 ]
food, the mind of mind’ (Śat. Br. 14.7 2.21 ¹), these “five-people”
(pañca-jana) are to be known as the vital-breath and the rest.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the question: Who, then, are the five-people, the author
replies here.
“On account of the complementary passage”, viz. ‘Those who
know the breath of breath, the eye of eye, the ear of ear, the mind of
mind’ (Śat. Br. 14 7 2.21), the vital-breath and the rest, five in num-
ber, having Brahman as their soul, and denoted by the term “five-
people”, are meant by the sacred text.
SŪTRA 13
“(THE NUMBER FIVE IS TO BE COMPLETED) BY LIGHT, FOOD BEING
NON-PRESENT (I.E. NOT MENTIONED) (IN THE TEXT) OF SOME”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“Food being non-present (i.e. non-mentioned)”, on the other
hand, in the complementary passage of the Kāṇvas ², the number
five is to be completed “by light”, mentioned in the beginning.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Apprehending the objection, viz. Let the vital-breath and the
rest, five in number, be the ‘five-people’ on the ground of the comple-
mentary passage, subsequent to the sacred text about the ‘five-people’
in the Mādhyandina branch. In the Kāṇva branch, too, there is a
text about the ‘five-people’. There the word ‘food’ is not found in
the complementary passage. Hence, how can the number five be
completed here?—the author replies here.
It has been said that the Mādhyandinas complete the number
five by means of food. But “there being the absence or non-mention
of food” in the reading “of some”, i.e. of the Kāṇvas, the number
five is completed “by light”, mentioned in the introductory passage:
‘That the gods worship as the light of lights’ (Bṛh 4.4.16),—this
¹ P. 1090, lines 5-6. Ś. R, Bh, ŚK, B.
² Viz. Bṛh. 4.4.18, which omits ‘annasya annam’.

[sū. 1. 4. 14
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 237
is the sense. Hence, it is established that pradhāna, devoid of any
connection with Brahman, is not an object to be known from Scripture.
Here ends the section entitled 'The collection of number' (3).
Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled 'Being the
cause'. (Sūtras 14-15)
SŪTRA 14
"AND (THE LORD ALONE IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD) AS THE CAUSE
WITH REGARD TO THE ETHER AND THE REST, ON ACCOUNT OF THE
DECLARATION OF (BRAHMAN) AS DESIGNATED."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Omniscient and omnipotent Brahman alone is to be understood
everywhere in the texts about the creation of the ether and the rest,
because the very same Brahman, "as designated" in the characteriz-
ing aphorism ¹ and the following, is demonstrated "as the cause"
of the ether and the rest.
Vedānta-kaustubha
An objection may be raised here. That view, too, which rejecting
pradhāna, established by Smṛti, as the cause of the world, takes the
universe to have Brahman as its sole cause, is, indeed, a doubtful one,
since in the Vedānta texts, demonstrating the cause, creation is stated
to be due to manifold causes. Thus, in a certain text. '"The existent
alone, my dear, was this in the beginning"' (Chānd. 6.2.1), creation
is said to be due to the existent, in a certain other text: 'From this
soul the ether has arisen' (Tait. 2.1), to be due to the soul alone;
again in another text, on the other hand: 'The non-existent, verily,
was this in the beginning, from that, forsooth, the existent arose'
(Tait. 2.7), likewise in the text: 'The non-existent alone was this in
the beginning, it was existent' (Chānd. 3.19.1), to be due to the non-
existent, in another text: '"What is its final goal?" "The ether"
said he' (Chānd. 1.9.1), to be due to the ether; in a certain other
text again: '"All these beings, verily, enter into the vital-breath"'
¹ Viz. Br. Sū. 1.1.2, etc.

[SŪ. 1. 4 14.
238 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.]
(Chānd. 1.11.5), to be due to the vital-breath; and in some passages
in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka 'The soul alone was this in the beginning'
(Bṛh. 1 4 17), 'Brahman, verily, was this in the beginning' (Bṛh.
1 4 10), to be due to the soul and to Brahman Such being our know-
ledge of the cause of the universe, it is not possible to ascertain
definitely that Brahman alone is the cause of the universe. But it
is possible to ascertain definitely that pradhāna, independent of
Brahman, is the cause of the universe Thus, in the text 'Verily, at
that time this was unmanifest (avyākṛta), it became manifest simply
by name and form' (Bṛh. 1 4 7), by the word 'unmanifest' pradhāna,
independent of a sentient principle, is declared to be the cause of the
universe The meaning of the text is that 'this', i.e the manifest
world, was 'at that time', i.e. prior to creation, 'unmanifest' and 'it',
viz. pradhāna, 'became manifest by name and form' The mass of
texts demonstrating the cause of the universe should be taken to be
referring to pradhāna alone
With a view to disposing of the above view, his Holiness is showing
that the mass of texts designating the cause of the universe all refer
to Brahman.
The word "and" is for disposing of the objection. The word
"as" implies the kind It is possible to ascertain definitely that
the Highest Person alone, omnipotent, endowed with the attributes
of omniscience and the rest and the Lord of all, is the Cause of the
Universe. How? "On account of the declaration" of the very
same Brahman, "designated" in the characterizing aphorism and
the rest, "as the cause" of effects like the ether and the rest. Thus,
Brahman alone, mentioned previously in the passage: 'Brahman is
truth, knowledge and infinite' (Taitt. 2.1), is designated as the cause
in the passage: 'From him, verily' (Taitt. 2.1) and so on. Likewise,
Brahman alone, indicated by the passages, ' "The existent alone,
my dear"' (Chānd. 6 2 1), 'He thought: "May I be many"' (Chānd.
6 2.3), is designated in the passage 'He created light' (Chānd.
6.2.3) The same is to be understood with regard to other Upaniṣad
texts too.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
General import same, literal interpretation different, viz. '(Al-
though there may be a conflict among the Vedānta texts) with regard

[sū. 1. 4 15.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 239
to (the order of the things created, like) the ether and the rest, (there
is no conflict among them with regard to the creator,) because as
(Brahman) is designated as the cause (in one Vedānta) so (He) is
mentioned (in other Vedāntas too)¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different. He does not begin a new adhikaraṇa
here, but continues the same topic Hence the sūtra: ‘And just as
on account of the declaration (i e understanding) (of Brahman) as
the cause (in all the Vedānta texts) with regard to (all the effects like)
the ether and the rest, (as well as in all other general texts), (pradhāna
of the Sāṁkhyas is not understood, so the Sāṁkhya principles are not
understood here)’. That is, just as we interpret the vague and general
text ‘verily, at that time, it was unmanifest’ (Bṛh. 1 4.7) in the light
of the specific text ‘The soul alone was this in the beginning’ (Bṛh.
1 4 1), and understand thereby the first text as denoting Brahman
and not the Sāṁkhya unmanifest or pradhāna, so exactly, here we
should interpret the vague and general text about the ‘five five-people’
(Bṛh 4.4.17, etc.) in the light of the specific passage about the vital-
breath and the rest (Bṛh. 4 4 18, etc.), and understand, thereby, the
‘five five-people’ as the vital-breath and the rest, and not as the
Sāṁkhya principles.²
SŪTRA 15
“ON ACCOUNT OF THE DRAWING IN.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“On account of the drawing in” of Brahman. That is, the very
same Brahman, mentioned previously in the passage: ‘He wished’
(Tait. 2.6 ³), is referred to in the passage: ‘The non-existent, verily’
(Tait. 2 7 ⁴) too. Similarly the very same Brahman, mentioned pre-
viously in the passage: ‘The sun is Brahman’ (Chānd. 3.19.1 ⁵), is also
referred to in the passage ‘The non-existent alone was this’ (Chānd.
3 19 1 ⁶). Hence, Brahman alone, who is ever existent, is denoted
¹ Ś.B 1.4.14, p. 414. ² ŚK. B. 1.1.14, p. 530, Part 6.
³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ⁴ Op cit.
⁵ Not quoted by others. ⁶ Ś, R, Bh, B.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 15.
240 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4 ]
by the word 'non-existent', since there being no distinction of names
and forms prior to creation, He has then no existence in so far as
connected with these names and forms. In the same manner, what
is denoted by the term 'unmanifest' in the passage: 'Verily, at that
time, this was unmanifest, it became manifest simply by name and
form' (Bṛh 1.4.7 ¹), is referred to in the subsequent passage as well:
'He is entered here as far as the finger-nail tips' (Bṛh. 1.4 7 ²) and
so on. It is also impossible for the non-sentient pradhāna to be a
controller by entering within. Hence, the unmanifest, its controller,
is said to be Brahman. The sense is that in the texts, demonstrating
the cause of the universe, Brahman alone, established by the defining
aphorism and the rest, is to be understood,—there is not even the
slightest possibility of pradhāna being so understood.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"On account of the drawing in" of Brahman. That is, the
very same Brahman, omniscient, and creating the universe subsequent
to His resolution to be many, as mentioned previously in the passage:
'He wished' (Tait. 2.6), is also referred to in the passage: 'The non-
existent, verily, was this in the beginning, from that the existent
arose' (Tait. 2.7). Here, Brahman as possessed of subtle powers
in His causal state is denoted by the term 'non-existent',—which
is but a synonym for the word 'subtle',—in contrast to Brahman as
possessed of manifested powers in His effected state, fit to be denoted
by the term 'existent',—which is but a synonym for the word 'gross'.
In the very same manner indeed, it should be known that Brahman,
mentioned previously in the passage: 'The sun is Brahman' (Chānd.
3.19.1), is referred to in the passage too: 'The non-existent alone was
this in the beginning, it was existent' (Chānd. 3.19.1) In the very
same manner, in the text about the unmanifest as well, it is the inner
controller of the unmanifest that is denoted by the word 'unmanifest',
as here the pronoun 'he' refers to Brahman, denoted by the term
'unmanifest', in the passage 'He is entered here as far as the finger-
nail tips. When seeing, the eye, when hearing, the ear, when think-
ing, the mind. Let one worship (Him) as the soul' (Bṛh 1.4 7).
In spite of there being a separate agent of manifestation, the expression
'It became manifest (vyākriyata)' should be understood as denoting
¹ Ś, R, Bh, B.
² S, R, ŚK, B

[sū. 1. 4. 15.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 241
an 'object-agent' (i e. the reflexive passive form) Or else, the present
indicative should be understood simply in the passive ¹ Hence,
everywhere the cause is one and the same indeed The objections
with regard to the cause are refuted in this section We shall dispose
of the objections with regard to the effects, on the other hand, in the
third quarter of the second chapter, under the aphorisms. 'Not the
ether, because of being non-scriptural' (Br. Sū. 2 3 1) and the follow-
ing Hence, it is established everywhere that the cause of the universe
is Brahman alone, a sentient Being and possessed of omniscience and
the rest.
Here ends the section entitled 'Being the cause' (4)
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
The general purport (of the sūtras 14-15) same, but while Nim-
bārka connects this adhikaraṇa more directly with the topic of the
preceding part of the pāda, viz with the refutation of the Sāṃkhya
view ², Śaṃkara and Bhāskara do not do so, but take it to be concerned
with the general question of the concordance of all texts with regard
to Brahman.³
Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different The same topic continued: 'On
account of the drawing in'. That is, just as the very same Brahman,
mentioned in the prior passage 'He wished' (Tait 2.6) is understood
in the subsequent passage too 'The non-existent alone was this in
the beginning' (Tait 2.7), because the two passages involve each
other, so exactly, the 'five five-people', mentioned in the prior passage
(Bṛh. 4.4.17, etc.) are understood as the vital-breath and the rest,
1 I.e. as having reference to a necessarily implied agent, as in the expression:
'The village is being approached'. Vide Ś.B. 1.4.15, p. 417.
2 This is evident from the concluding sentence of his explanation of the
sūtra 15. "Na pradhāna-śaṅkā-gandho' pīti bhāvaḥ". V.P.S. 1.4.15, p. 131,
K.S.S.
3 This is evident from the beginning of the adhikaraṇa 'Tatra idam aparam
āśaṅkate: Na janmā-di-kāraṇatvaṃ Brahmano, Brahma-viṣayaṃ vā gati-
sāmānyaṃ vedānta-vākyānāṃ pratipattum śakyam', etc. Vide Ś.B. 1.1.14,
pp. 412-13, Bh. B 1.1.14, pp. 76-77.
16

242 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 1. 4. 16.
ADH. 5.]
mentioned in the subsequent passage (Bṛh 4 4 18, etc.), because the
two passages involve each other ¹
Adhikaraṇa 5: The section entitled ‘Denoting
the world’. (Sūtras 16–18)
SŪTRA 16
“BECAUSE OF DENOTING THE WORLD”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
It is not to be supposed that in the text: ‘“He verily, O Bālāki,
who is the maker of these persons, of whom this is the work”’ (Kauṣ.
3.9 ²), the object to be known is the person, mentioned in the Tantra
(viz. in the Sāṁkhya doctrine) and the enjoyer of the fruits of merit
and demerit. None but the Supreme Soul is here indicated as the
object to be known. Why? Because Brahman is the topic, as known
from the text: ‘“Let me declare Brahman to you”’ (Kauṣ 4 1 ³);
because the word ‘work’, meaning ‘something that is done’, denotes
the world which is an effect, because by the pronoun ‘this’ the world,
established by the evidence of perception and the rest, is suggested;
and, lastly, because the person, mentioned in the Tantra, is not the
topic here.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The Sāṁkhyas hold that prakṛti is the agent and puruṣa the
enjoyer. The impossibility of prakṛti to be the cause has been shown
in various ways. Now, although it has been shown in the section
regarding Pratardana ⁴ that the Kauṣītaki-brāhmaṇa texts refer to
Brahman, yet by showing that the text ‘“Of whom this is the work”’
(Kauṣ. 4.19), too, refers to Brahman, the author is now disposing of
the objection, viz.: the person (puruṣa), admitted by the Sāṁkhyas,
is accepted by the Vedānta, on the ground of its being an enjoyer,
and prakṛti, superintended by it, is the cause of the world.
We read of a dialogue between Bālāki and Ajātaśatru in the
Kauṣītaki-brāhmaṇa. There, a sage, called Bālāki Gārgya having
¹ Śk. B. 1.1.14, pp. 532-33, Part 6.
² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ³ Ś, R, Bh, B.
⁴ Vide ‘Indra-prāṇādhikaraṇa’, sūtras 1.1.29–32.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 16.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 243
promised the king Ajātaśatru ‘“Let me declare Brahman to you”’
(Kauṣ 4.1), having then designated various persons as Brahman,
thus ‘“He who is the person within the sun”’ (Kauṣ. 4 3), ‘“The
person within the moon”’ (Kauṣ. 4.4) and so on ¹, became silent
Then, Ajātaśatru, who knew Brahman ², having condemned him
with the words ‘“In vain, did you tell me”’ ³ (Kauṣ. 4.19), said:
‘“He who, verily, O Bālāki, is the maker of these persons, and ⁴ of
whom this is the work, he, verily, is to be known”’ (Kauṣ. 4 19).
Here a doubt arises, viz. whether puruṣa, established in the Sāṁkhya-
tantra, the superintendent of prakṛti and the enjoyer, is taught here
as the object to be known, or the Supreme Soul The prima facie
view is as follows: It was puruṣa, unconnected with prakṛti, as estab-
lished in the Tantra, that was indicated, by the royal sage, as the
object to be known, because of the mention of a connection with
works in the phrase ‘“and of whom this is the work”’ (Kauṣ. 4.19);
because works, consisting in merit and demerit, are possible on the
part of the individual soul alone, entitled to works, because a connec-
tion with work is not admitted on the part of the Supreme Soul;
and, because the origin of the world is due to the works of the respective
enjoyers. Moreover, here in accordance with the text ‘ ‘They two
went to a sleeping person’ (Kauṣ. 4.19), it was the enjoying soul
alone which was demonstrated by Ajātaśatru to Bālāki. Likewise,
in the passage ‘ ‘Just as a merchant enjoys with his own people, and
as his own people enjoy him, so exactly this intelligent self enjoys
with these selves, so exactly these selves enjoy it’ (Kauṣ. 4.20), the
characteristic mark of the enjoying soul alone is found. The meaning
of the text is as follows: ‘Just as a merchant’, i.e. a lord who is the
chief, enjoys ‘with his own people’, i.e. with implements like servants
and the rest; and ‘his own people’, i.e. the servants and the rest,
‘enjoy’ the merchant, i.e. depend on him for food and clothing, ‘so

¹ The sage wanted to teach the king about the person within the sun,
that within the moon, that within the lightning, that within the cloud and so on,
altogether about sixteen persons, but in each case, the king begged to be spared
of the teaching, as he was already acquainted with the person in question.
Finally, the king himself taught the sage about Brahman. Vide Kauṣ. 4.
² The word ‘Brahmajña’ is not really included in the text.
³ Correct quotation: ‘Mṛṣā vai khalu mā saṁvādayiṣṭhā’, in which case it
would mean ‘in vain, verily, did you make me talk’. Vide Kauṣ. 4.19, p. 138
⁴ Correct quotation ‘vā’ and not ‘ca’.

244 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 4. 16.
ADH. 5.]
exactly this intelligent self 'enjoys with these', i.e with the persons
within the sun and the rest. And it cannot be said that since the word
'work', mentioned in the concluding text : '"Of whom this is the work"'
(Kaus. 4.19) denotes action, the vital-breath, possessing the activity
of motion as his substratum, mentioned in the concluding text: 'In
this vital-breath alone, he becomes one' (Kaus. 4 20), is to be under-
stood; but purusa, established in the Tantra and the enjoyer of the
fruits of works, is not to be accepted here as the object to be known,—
for the term 'vital-breath' refers to the bearer of the vital-breath
or the individual soul, such a construction, viz. 'in this vital-breath',
meaning 'in purusa, the bearer of the vital-breath', being possible.
If, in accordance with the explanation 'In the vital-breath which is
present in this, i e in the soul', the two locatives (viz. 'in this' and
'in the vital-breath') are to refer to different objects ¹, then although
the word 'vital-breath' will refer to the chief vital-breath, yet as it
is naturally an implement of the individual soul, none but the individual
soul is the object to be established here. And hence the meaning is:
'He who is the maker', i.e. the cause, 'of these persons', i.e. of the
persons dwelling in the orb of the sun and the rest, and implements
of the enjoyment of the individual soul, 'and of whom this is the
work', i e. merit and demerit, the cause of its being the cause ²,
is to be known as unconnected with prakṛti. And hence Brahman,
introduced as the object to be depicted in the text : '"Let me declare
Brahman to you"' (Kaus 4 1), is none but purusa, there being no
proof of any God other than it. As the qualities of perceiving and the
rest, belonging to the cause, are possible on its part, possessing as it
does the quality of consciousness, prakṛti alone, superintended by
the puruṣa, the enjoyer, is the cause of the world. (Here ends the
prima facie view.)
(Author's conclusion.)
With regard to it, we reply: Here, the Highest Person alone, the
maker of the persons, is the object to be known. Why? For the
following reasons: First, the term 'work' denotes the world; and the
¹ I.e. standing in a vyadhikaraṇa relation and not in a samānādhikaraṇa
relation, or in a relation of a noun and an adjective referring to the same locus,
as the first explanation takes them to be.
² I.e. the works (karmas) of the soul lead to the creation of the world the sun
and the rest.

[SŪ. 1 4. 16.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 245
creatorship of the world is not possible on the part of any one other
than the Supreme Soul. A 'work' is what is done, i e the world,
consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient. Secondly, the creator-
ship of the world is not possible on the part of the sentient individual
soul which has entered into the world as an enjoyer, and which is
never admitted to be a creator Thirdly, the creatorship of the world
is impossible also on the part of prakṛti, superintended by the indivi-
dual soul of little knowledge and little power In ordinary life, what
little is done by non-sentient objects, like chariots and the rest superin-
tended by sentient beings, is due to the sentient beings alone And,
there being no purpose in rejecting the primary agent, the primary
agent is none but the Supreme Being, celebrated in a mass of scriptural
texts. The world, known through perception and the rest, is referred
to by the pronoun 'this'. Work consisting in merit and demerit
simply is not denoted by the term 'work' here. Since the sixteen
persons, indicated as Brahman by Bālāki who had promised ' " Let
me declare Brahman to you "' (Kauṣ. 4 1), were not really Brahman,
Ajātaśatru, having condemned him who could not tell him about
Brahman, thus: ' " In vain, verily, did you tell me ¹ "' (Kauṣ. 4 19),
taught the Supreme Soul,—not known by the sage, and the maker
of the persons indicated by him,—as the object to be known, with
the words: ' " He who, verily, O Bālāki "' (Kauṣ. 4.19). Otherwise,
the persons connected with works, i.e. merit or demerit, being
already known to Bālāki, the teaching of them as the objects to
be known would be meaningless. Hence, the word 'work' simply
denotes that the universe consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient
is an effect, and does not denote mere merit and demerit, or mere
action This being so, the word 'this', too, has a purpose, since,
referring as it does to the entire world, consisting of the sentient and
the non-sentient and known through the evidence of perception and
the rest, it serves to preclude the supposition of its being due to a
mere person. Thus, the meaning of the text ' " He who, verily, O
Bālāki, is the maker of these persons "' (Kauṣ. 4.19) is as follows:
O Bālāki, he who is the maker of the persons within the sun and the
rest, designated by you as Brahman, and who is not the maker of the
persons only, but of whom this entire universe, consisting of the sentient
and the non-sentient, is an effect,—that Supreme Soul, the soul of
¹ For correct quotation see footnote 3, p 243.