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

[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.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 17.
246 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
all, the Lord of all, is the object to be known. Here, although the
persons, being included within the world, are proved to have the
Supreme Soul as their cause, their separate mention is to be known
for the purpose of rejecting their Brahman-hood, claimed by Bālāki.¹
SŪTRA 17
"IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE CHARACTERISTIC
MARK OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL AND THE CHIEF VITAL-BREATH,
(THE LORD IS NOT DENOTED HERE), (WE REPLY:) THAT HAS BEEN
EXPLAINED."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that on account of the characteristic mark of
the individual soul, contained in the passage 'This intelligent self
enjoys with these selves' (Kaus. 4.20 ²); as well as on account of the
characteristic mark of the chief vital-breath, contained in the passage:
'Now, in this vital-breath alone he becomes one' (Kaus. 3.3; 4.20 ³),
one of these two is to be understood, and not Brahman,—
(We reply:) "that has been explained" in the section treating of
Pratardana ⁴. The sense is that the characteristic marks of the
individual soul and the rest have been explained there as referring
to Brahman, and should be known to be so here as well.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected: On account of the characteristic mark of an
individual soul, contained 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 do these selves
enjoy it' (Kaus. 4.20); as well as on account of the characteristic
mark of the chief vital-breath, contained in the passages: 'Then in

¹ I.e. in the text: 'He who is the creator of these persons, of whom this
is the work', the phrase 'of whom this is the work' implies that the entire
universe—including the sun and the rest—is the effect of Brahman. In spite
of this the persons within the sun and the rest are mentioned separately once
more as the effects of Brahman, because the king wants to point out particularly
that they are not Brahman, as previously alleged.
² Ś, R, ŚK.
³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. ⁴ Vide Br. Sū. 1.1.29–32.

[sū. 1. 4. 18.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 247
this vital-breath alone he becomes one’ (Kaus. 3.3; 4.20), one of
these two is to be understood, and not the Supreme Soul,—
(We reply) “that has been explained” in the sub-section, begin-
ning with the aphorism: ‘The vital-breath, on account of intelligi-
bility in that way’ (Br. Sū. 1.1.29). There, the text being ascer-
tained to have Brahman for its object on the ground of the beginning
and the end, the marks of the individual soul and the rest, too, have
been described as referring to Him alone. In the very same manner,
here, too, in the beginning, in the passage: ‘ “Let me declare Brahman
to you”’ (Kaus. 4.1), Brahman is mentioned as the object. In the
middle, too, in the text: ‘ “Of whom this is the work”’ (Kaus. 4.19),
Brahman is mentioned as the agent of the ‘work’ or the entire universe.
The end as well refers to none but Brahman, since the text: ‘He who
knows thus, having overcome all evils, attains supremacy, independent
rule and lordship among all beings’ (Kauṣ. 4.20), declares that
excellent results pertain to His worshippers. Thus, this text being
ascertained to be referring to Brahman, the characteristic marks of
the individual soul and the rest, too, are to be taken as referring to
Him. And, it is not to be said that there is any repetition here (of
what has already been said under Br. Sū. 1.1.29–32), since that section
about Pratardana does not determine the meaning of the text: ‘Of
whom this is the work’ (Kaus. 4.19), which the present section does.
COMPARISON
Bhāskara
Reading different, viz. he reads this sūtra and the next one as one
sūtra.¹
—————
SŪTRA 18
“BUT JAIMINI (THINKS THAT THE MENTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
SOUL) HAS A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, ON ACCOUNT OF QUESTION AND
EXPLANATION, AND THUS SOME (READ).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Jaimini thinks that the mention of the individual soul in this
section has the purpose of suggesting Brahman, other than the
—————
¹ Bh. B. 1.1.17, p. 78.

[sū. 1. 4. 18.
248 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5 ]
individual soul, on account of the question: " 'Where, O Bālāki, did
this person lie? What did he become? Whence did he come back?' "
(Kauṣ. 4 19 ¹), and on account of the reply. " 'When the sleeping
person sees no dreams whatsoever, then in this vital-breath alone he
becomes one' " (Kauṣ. 4 19 ²). The Vājasaneyins, too, thus record
the Supreme Soul as other than the individual soul. There too, there
are question and answer. The question is: " 'What did he then be-
come? Whence did he return?' " (Bṛh. 2.1 16 ³), and the answer
is: " 'That which is this ether within the heart, in that he lies' "
(Bṛh. 2 1 17 ⁴).
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. since in the text 'In this vital-breath
alone he becomes one' (Kauṣ. 4.19), entering by the individual
soul is mentioned, and since the term 'vital-breath' is applied to
Brahman, who alone is fit to be the substratum of the individual
soul's entering, let the characteristic marks of the vital-breath refer
to Brahman. But it seems very difficult to take the characteristic
marks of the individual soul as referring to Brahman, since here in the
passage: 'They two went to a sleeping person' (Kauṣ. 4.19), the
exclusive mark of an individual soul is found,—the author replies
here.
The teacher Jaimini thinks that the mention of the individual
soul in this section "has a different purpose", viz. the purpose of
demonstrating that the Supreme Soul,—possessed of the qualities
of being a support and the rest,—is different from the individual soul,
possessed of the qualities of 'being the object to be supported', etc.
Why? "On account of question and explanation." Thus, Ajāta-
śatru, a knower of Brahman, approached a sleeping person with
Bālāki, desirous of enquiring into Brahman, and called that person
thus: " 'O Soma, the king' " (Kauṣ. 4 19). But when the sleeper
did not hear him, Ajātaśatru thereby demonstrated the fact that
enjoyer is different from the vital-breath and the rest which are not
enjoyers. After that, when the sentient soul, different from those non-
sentient, was awakened by the push of the stick, Ajātaśatru himself
asked the following questions with a view to demonstrating Brahman
once more as different from the sentient and the non-sentient:
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² Op. cit.
³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ⁴ Op. cit.

[sū. 1. 4. 18.
ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 249
' "Where, O Bālāki, did this person lie ? What, verily, did he become ?
Whence did he return"?' (Kaus 4.19). As Bālāki was unable to
answer the question, Ajātaśatru himself replied. ' "When the sleeping
person sees no dream whatsoever, then in this vital-breath alone he
becomes one ; when he wakes up, . . . then from
this soul all the vital-breaths proceed, each towards its place, from the
vital-breaths the gods, from the gods the worlds" ' (Kaus. 4.20).
On account of such question and answer the Supreme Soul, different
from the individual soul, is to be understood here. The sense is
this : During the period of deep sleep, the soul, having drawn forth
the whole group sense-organs, and having entered into the Supreme
Soul,—denoted by the term 'vital-breath' which stands in apposition
with the pronoun 'this' in the text: 'In this vital-breath' (Kaus
4.19),—becomes self-abiding and tranquil. Then, when time comes,
it goes out from that very vital-breath for undergoing retributive
experiences. This Supreme Soul, celebrated to be the substratum
of deep sleep ¹ and the rest, and different from the individual soul,
is the object to be known,—such is the view of Jaimini as well. The
mention of Jaimini is for the purpose of clearly indicating that the
meaning stated above by us is highly commendable.
"And thus some", i.e the Vājasaneyins designate the Supreme
Soul as different from the individual soul, consisting of intelligence.
There, too, a dialogue between Bālāki and Ajātaśatru has been intro-
duced, containing a question and an answer. The question is: ' "He
who consists of intelligence, what did he become then? Whence did
he come ?"' (Brh. 2.1.16); and the answer is: ' "That which is the
ether within the heart, in that he lies"' (Brh. 2 1.17 ²). That the
ether is the Supreme Soul has been established under the section,
concerned with the text: 'Small is the ether within that' (Chānd.
8.1.1 ³). This difference between the individual soul and the Lord
has been demonstrated before by the author of the aphorisms in many
aphorisms like: 'And on account of the designation of difference'
(Br. Sū 1.1.18 ⁴), etc. Incidentally it is confirmed here too as being
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ Vide Br. Sū. 3.2 7.
² The Bālāki Ajātaśatru-samvāda in Brh. 2.1 is exactly similar to that in
Kaus 4, only the latter makes no mention of the ether.
³ Vide Dahara-adhikarana, Br. Sū. 1.3.14-24.
⁴ Vide also Br Sū. 1.1.22, 1 2.4, 1 2 21, 1.2.23, 1.3 5, etc. (The num-
bering is Nimbārka's.)

[SŪ. 1. 4. 18.
250 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
held by Jaimini as well, with the words. “But Jaimini (thinks that
the mention of the individual soul has a different purpose”. With a
view to showing that it is confirmed all the more strongly as being
based on the Veda, it is said “On account of question and explana-
tion”, and for suggesting that it is celebrated in all the Upaniṣads,
it is said “and thus some” The non-difference between the individual
soul and Brahman, too, has been mentioned before,¹ and we shall
speak of it carefully later on.² Hence, none but the Supreme Soul
is taught as the object to be known. It is established that He alone
is the cause of the origin and the rest of the universe, and not puruṣa,
established in the Tantra, or pradhāna, superintended by it.
Here ends the section entitled ‘Denoting the world’ (5).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
General import same, only while Nimbārka, as before, connects
this adhikaraṇa more directly with the topic of the preceding part
of the pāda, viz. refutation of the Sāṁkhya view, Śaṁkara 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
General import same, but he too does not take this adhikaraṇa
as concerned with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, but with
the question of the difference between the individual soul and Brah-
man.⁴ Hence according to him, the problem here is whether the
¹ Vide V.K. 1.1 1, p. 11, 1.1 7, p. 25, 1.2.6, p 52, etc. (Page references
are to the K.S.S. ed.)
² Vide e.g. VK 1.4.20, p. 139, 1.4.21, p. 140, 2.1.16, p. 151, etc. (K.S.S.
ed.)
³ This is evident from the fact that while according to Nimbārka the question
is whether in Kauṣ. 4.19 the object to be known is the Sāṁkhya puruṣa or the
Supreme Soul (vide V.P S. 1.3.16), according to Śaṁkara and Bhāskara, the
question is whether in the same text the object to be known is the vital-breath
or the Supreme Soul. Vide Ś.B. 1.4.16, p. 418; Bh. B. 1.4.16, p. 78.
⁴ Punar api jīvāt parameśvarasya anya-bhāvam upapādayati. ŚK. B. 1.4.16,
Intro., p. 535, Part 6.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 19.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 251
object to be known in Kauṣītaki text (4.19) is the individual soul
or the Supreme Soul, and so on ¹
Adhikaraṇa 6. The section entitled ‘The con-
nection of texts’ (Sūtras 19–22)
SŪTRA 19
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONNECTION OF TEXTS.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text. ‘ “O! the self, verily, should be seen” ’ (Bṛh. 2.4.5,
4.5.6 ²), the Supreme Soul should be understood as the object to be
seen, “on account of the connection” of the text with Him alone.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, by showing once more the concordance of the scriptural
texts with regard to Brahman, the author is disposing of puruṣa,
admitted by the Sāṁkhyas.
We find the following text in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka under the
Maitreyī-brāhmaṇa, beginning: ‘He said: “O, not for the love of the
husband, verily, is a husband dear, but for the love of the soul is a
husband dear” ’ (Bṛh 2.4.5; 4.5.6), and continuing : ‘ “O, the self,
verily, should be seen, should be heard, should be meditated on” ’
(Bṛh 2.4.5; 4.5.6). Here the doubt is, viz. whether the soul, the
twenty-fifth principle of the Sāṁkhyas, is taught as the object to be
seen, or the Highest Person, Lord Vāsudeva? What is reasonable
here? The prima facie objector thinks: The soul, the twenty-fifth
principle established by the Tantra, is taught as the object to be seen
and so on, as it is possible for it alone to be the object of the acts of
perception and the rest, as it is impossible for Brahman, admitted
by the defendant, to be properly an object of an act, He being unlimited
by so muchness; as the connection of the Self with the dearness of
husband, wife, son and the rest, mentioned in the beginning, is possible
on the part of only puruṣa, mentioned by the Tantra; as in the middle,
too, in the text : ‘ “This great Being, infinite and endless, is but a
¹ Op. cit., pp. 536 et seq. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1 4. 19.
252 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.]
mass of intelligence Having risen from those elements, one vanishes
into them alone. After death, there is no consciousness"' (Brh. 2.4 12,
4.5.13), purusa is laid down as subject to transmigratory existence
as connected with origin and destruction—purusa, which is mentioned
in the Tantra, the very one, which dwells within the body as indicated
by the word 'this', which is indicated by the word 'great being' with
a view to making its distinction from the material beings clear, which
is indicated by the word 'infinite' with a view to making its illimitable-
ness in time clear, which is endless, i.e innumerable, and which is a
mass of intelligence, and as, finally, towards the end as well, the
text. '"O, whereby one should know the knower"?' (Brh 2.4.14;
4.5.15), declares it to be a knower.
With regard to it, we point out the right conclusion None but
the Highest Person is here taught as the object to be seen and so on.
Why? Because the text has connection with the Supreme Soul
alone, i.e because from a consideration of the beginning and the end,
the connection of the group of texts, intending to convey the same
meaning, as referring to the Supreme Soul is known Thus, when
from Yājñavalkya's statement, viz. '"Of immortality, however, there
is no hope through wealth"' (Brh. 2 4.2; 4 5 3). Maitreyī came to
know definitely that work, to be accomplished by means of wealth,
is not a means to salvation,—as well-known from other scriptural
texts too, viz. 'Frail indeed are these boats of sacrifices' (Mund
1 2 7), 'What is not made is not gained through what is made'
(Mund. 1.2.12) and so on,—she, desiring for salvation, asked about
the means to salvation, thus. '"What shall I do with that whereby
I may not be immortal? Whatever, Sir, you know, tell me that"'
(Brh. 2 4.3; 4.5 4) Thus asked, Yājñavalkya taught the Supreme
Soul alone, the soul of all, as the object of the acts of seeing and the
rest, thus. '"O, the self, verily, should be seen"' (Brh. 2.4.3, 4.5.4),
salvation being possible through the meditation on Him alone. The
knowledge of all, too, is possible through the knowledge of Him.
In the end, too, the attribute of 'being the self of all', mentioned
in the passage '"All this is the soul"' (Brh 2.4.6, 4.5.7), is a charac-
teristic mark of the Supreme Soul alone.

[sū. 1. 4. 20.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 253
SŪTRA 20
"(THE BEGINNING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS) A MARK OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INITIAL PROPOSITION, ĀŚMARATHYA
(THINKS SO) "
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
To the question. Why, then, is there the beginning with the
individual soul? we reply the fact that the Supreme Soul is designated
by a word denoting the individual soul,—the latter being non-different
from the former as His effect,—is a convincing proof "of the estab-
lishment of the initial proposition", viz that through the knowledge
of one, there is the knowledge of all. So "Āśmarathya" thinks.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected. The individual soul alone is apprehended as
connected with the dearness of husband and the rest in the beginning,
in the passage. ‘"O, not for the love of the husband, verily, is a husband
dear, but for the love of the soul is a husband dear’" (Bṛh 2 4.5,
4.5.6) and so on; as well as connected with origin and destruction
in the middle, in the passage: ‘"Having arisen from these beings, one
vanishes into them alone. After death there is no consciousness’"
(Bṛh. 2 4 12; 4.5.13),—
(We reply:) True. Still, by the term "individual soul" the
Supreme Soul is to be understood here. No such objection can be raised
in view of the fact that He, being the cause of all, can be denoted by
all words The author is showing this with the approval of another
teacher
In accordance with the text ‘From whom, verily, all these
elements arise’ (Tait 3.1), the individual soul, too, entered into the
elements, is reckoned among the effects, and Brahman is the cause.
These two being the effect and the cause, there is, undoubtedly, a
primary difference between them. Thus the texts designating duality
are correct Since the effect is non-different from the cause, being
born from it and so on, non-difference between the two, too, is equally
a fact. Thus, the texts designating non-duality, too, are correct.
In this way, both the kinds of texts being authoritative in their own
senses, there is a natural relation of difference and non-difference
between the individual soul and Brahman. Hence, it is possible for
words denoting the effects to denote the causes as well, just as in the

[SŪ. 1. 4. 21.
254 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 6.]
case of the pot and the clay, standing in the relation of effect and
cause, the word 'pot' refers to the clay as well. This being so, the
initial proposition too, viz. that through the knowledge of one, there
is the knowledge of all, is established,—such is the view of Āśmarathya.
The meaning of the words of the aphorism is as follows. This, really,
is "a mark" or a convincing proof "of the establishment of the initial
proposition", viz. that through the knowledge of one, there is the
knowledge of all. What mark? Listen ¹ The individual soul being
non-different from the Supreme Soul as His effect, by the word
"individual soul" the Supreme Soul is designated,—so the teacher
Āśmarathya thinks
SŪTRA 21
"ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH A CONDITION OF ONE WHO IS ABOUT TO
DEPART, AUḌULOMI (THINKS SO)"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
On account of the union of the individual soul, about to depart
from the body, with Brahman, Brahman is denoted by a word denoting
the individual soul,—so Auḍulomi thinks.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"On account of such a condition," i e. on account of the union
of the individual soul with the Supreme Soul,—of the soul which "is
about to depart" from the aggregation of the body and the sense-
organs, in accordance with the text: 'As the flowing rivers disappear
into the sea, leaving names and forms, so a knower, freed from name
and form, attains the celestial Person, higher than the high' (Chānd.
8.3.4), which is endowed with the hearing, the thinking, the meditation
and the direct vision of Brahman; and which is well-known to be
unborn from the scriptural and Smṛti texts like. 'A wise man is
neither born, nor dies' (Kaṭha 2.18), 'This is unborn, eternal,
constant' (Gītā 2.20), i.e. on account of its attaining the state of
Brahman, the Supreme Soul is denoted by a term denoting the
individual soul,—so thinks the teacher Auḍulomi. On this view,
there is a difference between the individual soul and Brahman during
the soul's state of bondage, and non-difference during its state of

[SŪ. 1. 4. 22.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 255
release. In this manner, there are both difference and non-difference
between the individual soul and Brahman. Thus, the meaning of the
text is difference and non-difference,—such is the view of the teacher
Auḍulomi. Such difference and non-difference are admitted by the
reverend Auḍulomi for the benefit of the dull-witted. But really
even during the state of bondage, the individual soul, which is atomic
in size and possesses little knowledge, though different from Brahman
who is all-pervasive, non-deviating in nature and omniscient, is yet
non-different from Him, since it has no separate existence and
activity,—just as a leaf is non-different from the tree, the ray from the
lamp, the attribute from its substratum and the sense-organs from the
vital-breath. Likewise, though in release it is non-different from
Him, it having no separate existence and activity, at the same time,
it is undoubtedly different from Him, in accordance with the text:
‘It is completed in its own form alone’ ¹ (Chānd. 8.3.4). Otherwise,
the imperishableness of the respective natures of both must come to
be jeopardized. The view of Āśmarathya, too, should be known to be
the same.
COMPARISON
The commentators give different meanings of the word ‘evaṁ
bhāvāt’. According to Śaṁkara and Bhāskara it means ‘on account
of attaining identity with the Supreme Soul’; ² according to Rāmānuja
and Śrīkaṇṭha, ‘on account of attaining the state of the Supreme Soul’; ³
and according to Baladeva, ‘on account of becoming dear to all, etc.’ ⁴
SŪTRA 22
“ON ACCOUNT OF ABIDING, SO KĀŚAKRTSNA.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“On account of the abiding” of the Supreme Lord,—celebrated in
the passage: ‘Entered within, the ruler of men’ (Tait. Ār. 3.11.1, 2 ⁵)
1 ‘Eva’ is not included in the original text. Vide Chānd. 8.3 4, p. 421.
2 ‘Paramātmaikyopapatteḥ.’ Ś B. 1.4.21, p. 425, Bh. B. 1.4.21, p. 81.
3 ‘Paramātma-bhāvāt.’ Śrī. B 1.4.21, p. 394, Part 1, Madras ed. Śk. B.
1.4.21, p. 549, Part 6.
4 G B 1.4.21 5 P. 181. R.