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

[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.

[sū. 1. 4. 22.
256 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.]
and so on,—in the individual soul as the controller, in the beginning
and in what follows, by a term denoting the object to be controlled
the controller is understood—so thinks Kāśakrtsna.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"On account of the abiding" of the Supreme Soul in the individual
soul,—an object to be controlled by Him,—as its soul, in accordance
with the texts: 'He who abiding in the soul is other than the soul,
whom the soul does not know, of whom the soul is the body, who rules
the soul within, he is your soul, the inner controller, immortal' (Śat
Br. 14.6.7, 30 ¹), 'Entered within, the ruler of men, the soul of all'
(Tait. Ār. 3.11 2), by a term denoting the individual soul, the
Supreme Soul is denoted,—so thinks the teacher Kāśakrtsna, a knower
of the object controlled, as well as of the controller
Thus, by means of the views of the three sages, the nature of
difference and non-difference has been incidentally shown by his
Holiness. And with a view to removing the contradiction among the
scriptural texts by his own theory, he will clearly prove the natural
relation of difference-non-difference between the individual soul
and Brahman in the aphorisms 'A part, on account of the designation
of variety' (Br Sū. 2.3.42) and so on.
Here, the word 'soul' in the beginning refers to the Supreme Soul
alone The worship of that very Supreme Soul is designated as a
means to salvation in the passage " 'O, the soul, verily" ' (Brh. 2 4.5,
4 5 6) and so on. The text 'Having arisen from these beings, one
vanishes into them alone' (Bṛh. 24 12, 4.5.13), indicates trans-
migratory existence pertaining to one who is averse to the Supreme
Soul, and the text: 'There is no consciousness after death' (Brh
2.4.12; 4.5.13) indicates salvation pertaining to His worshipper.
Hence, it is established that the texts of the Maitreyī-brāhmaṇa all
agree in referring to Brahman, different and non-different from the
sentient and the non-sentient, the cause of all, to be approached by
the freed and the controller of all
Here ends the section entitled 'The connection of texts' (6)
1 P. 1074, line 18.

[sū. 1. 4. 23.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 257
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
Here too, as before, the general import is the same, but while
Nimbārka ¹ takes this adhikarana to be connected more directly with
the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrī-
kaṇṭha do not. Further, Śaṁkara and Bhāskara interpret the word
‘avasthiteḥ’ differently. To them, it means ‘because of (Brah-
man’s) abiding as the individual soul’ (vijñātmā-bhāvena) ².
Adhikaraṇa 7. The section entitled ‘The
material cause’. (Sūtras 23–27)
SŪTRA 23
“(BRAHMAN IS) THE MATERIAL CAUSE, AND (THE EFFICIENT CAUSE),
ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT WITH REGARD TO THE
INITIAL PROPOSITION AND THE ILLUSTRATION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“The material cause,” as well as the efficient cause,—indicated by
the particle “and” (in the sūtra),—is none but the Supreme Soul,
because then alone the initial proposition: ‘“Did you ask for that in-
struction whereby the unheard becomes heard, the unthought becomes
thought, the unknown becomes known ?”’ (Chānd. 6.1.3 ³), as well as
the illustration: ‘“Just as, my dear, through a lump of clay, all objects
made of clay may be known”’ (Chānd. 6.1.4 ⁴) are explicable.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Having thus refuted the atheistic school of the Sāṁkhyas, now
the author, by refuting the theistic school of the Sāṁkhyas, is confirm-
ing the view, mentioned above, that the Lord is the non-different
material and efficient cause of the world.
It may be objected that, properly, this section ought to have
been inserted immediately after the aphorism: ‘From whom (arise)

¹ Vide V.K. 1.4.11, p. 137, Kāsī ed.
² Ś.B. 1 4 21, p. 426; Bh. B. 1.4.21, p 81.
³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ⁴ Op. cit.
17

[SŪ. 1. 4. 23.
258 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.]
the origin and the rest of this’ (Br. Sū. 1.1.2), demonstrating the
characteristic marks of Brahman, establishing the nature of the cause
of the world. (To this we reply). No. One sees its appropriateness
here indeed. Thus, on the enquiry: viz Of what mark is Brahman?
with regard to the injunction, viz. ‘An enquiry into Brahman should
be undertaken’,—the mark of Brahman was stated in the aphorism
‘From whom (arise) the origin and the rest of this’ (Br. Sū. 1.1.2).
There it was certainly established, on the ground of scriptural and
Smṛti texts, that Brahman is both the material and the efficient
cause. After that, there being no enquiry as to whether He is only
the material cause, or only the efficient cause, the topic was not
further amplified But there those who take everything to be the
transformation of prakṛti (and take Brahman to be the efficient
cause only) are being refuted separately.
Thus, some theistic Sāṁkhyas hold: In the world of ordinary
experience, sentient beings like potters and the rest are found to be
the efficient cause alone, and not the material cause. In the passages:
‘He thought’ (Bṛh. 1.2.5 ; Ait 1.1), ‘He thought’ (Praśna 6.3),
creation is said to be preceded by thinking. Hence let the Supreme
Lord, the thinker, be, somehow or other, only the efficient cause of
the world: but the material cause of mahat and the rest is nothing
but pradhāna, superintended by Him, just as clay is the material
cause of pots and the like, in accordance with the text: ‘He thinks
of her who is the mother of all changes, non-knowing, having eight
forms, and eternal. Ruled by him she manifests herself; again incited
and superintended by him alone ¹ she gives birth to the world for the
benefit of the soul. She is a cow, without beginning and end, the
progenitress, the source of all beings’ (Cūl. 3b–5a ²).
With regard to it, we reply. Brahman alone is ‘prakṛti’, i.e. the
material cause of the world, as well as its efficient cause, indicated by
the particle “and” (in the sūtra). Why? “On account of the
absence of conflict with regard to the initial proposition and illus-
tration,” i.e. on account of the non-contradiction or consistency of
¹ Incorrect, ought to be ‘adhyāsitā, which is translated here.
² Reading different, viz.:
‘Vikāra-jananīm māyām aṣṭa-rūpām dhruvām
Dhyāyate adhyāsitā tena tanyate preritā punaḥ.
Stūyate puruṣārthañ ca tenaivādhiṣṭhitā purā
Gaur anādyavatī sā tu janitrī bhūta-bhāvinī’. Vide Cūl. 3–5, p. 230.

[sū. 1. 4. 23.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 259
the initial proposition and the illustration. The initial proposition,
to begin with, is as follows: '"Did you ask for that instruction whereby
the unheard becomes heard, the unthought thought, the unknown
known ?'" (Chānd. 6.1.3). The meaning of this text is as follows:
O son Śvetaketu! Did you ask for that 'instruction', i.e. that
instructor, viz. the Supreme Soul, 'whereby', i.e. through hearing
of whom from the preceptor, even what is unheard becomes heard,
what is unthought becomes thought, what is unknown becomes
known ? It is known from this initial proposition that the Supreme
Soul is the material cause, since the hearing and the rest of the effects
is justifiable only through the hearing and the rest of the material
cause. The illustration given is as follows: '"Just as, my dear, through
a lump of clay, all objects made of clay may be known"' (Chānd.
6.1.4) and so on. It is known from this illustration that the Supreme
Soul is the material cause of the object illustrated as well (viz. clay)
A potter has not been cited in the illustration; and through a potter
being known, a pot cannot be known. But a lump of clay being known,
all objects made of clay, like pots and the rest, may, indeed, be known.
To the contention, viz. that in the world of ordinary experience
sentient beings like potters and the rest are found to be efficient
causes merely,—we reply: We do not arrive at the cause of the world
by means of inference and the rest, and so, for us, there is no need for
the illustration of a potter. But discarding all evidences contrary
to the Veda, we follow what is mentioned by Scripture and the pre-
ceptor ¹. Moreover, in the world of ordinary experience, too, we see
that a sentient person is the material cause of the effects like hairs,
body-hairs and the rest; that a spider is the material cause of the
web, and so on. We read in Scripture, too: 'Just as hairs and body-
hairs (arise) from a person, just as a spider creates and takes' (Muṇḍ.
1.1.7 ²). If it be objected that in the above cases, the material
causes containing elements, suitable for giving rise to the effects,—(we
reply:) in the subject of our discussion, too, there is God's self-power,
called prakṛti.
¹ Vide V.K. 1.1.3
² Correct quotation:
'Yathā ūrṇa-nābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca
Yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ sambhavanti.
Yathā sataḥ puruṣāt keśa-lomāni', etc. Vide Muṇḍ. 1.1.7, p. 9.

260 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 4. 24-25.
ADH. 7.]
SŪTRA 24
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF REFLECTION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the teaching of reflection" in the text: 'He
perceived (i.e thought): "May I be many"' (Chānd. 6.2.3), the fact
that Brahman is the creator (i.e. the efficient cause) and the material
cause is established.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"On account of the teaching of reflection," i.e. on account of
the teaching of resolution, in the passage: 'He wished' (Tait. 2.6),
as well as on account of the teaching of resolution in the passage
'"May I be many"' (Tait. 2.6, Chānd. 6.2.3), the Supreme Soul
alone can appropriately be the creator (or the efficient cause) and the
material cause respectively)
COMPÁRISON
All others read 'ca' in the end.¹
SŪTRA 25
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIRECT MENTION OF BOTH IN THE
SACRED TEXT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
On account of the direct mention of Brahman as the efficient
and material cause in the sacred text: 'Brahman was the wood,
Brahman the tree from which they carved out the heaven and the
earth. O wise men, ask through the mind whereon it stood supporting
the worlds' ² (Tait. Br. 2.8.9.6-7 ³), Brahman alone is of the two-fold
forms.
¹ The reading in the C.S.S. ed. of V.P S., however, adds 'ca' at the end,
p. 23. But the Brindaban ed. (vol. I) omits the 'ca', p. 354.
² Last line of the quotation incorrect. For the correct quotation see below
V.K. The C.S.S. ed. gives the correct quotation, p. 23, which is translated here.
³ P. 360, lines 5–7, vol. 2.
R, Bh, B.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 26.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 261
Vedānta-kaustubha
The particle "and" implies affirmation. Brahman is, indeed,
both the material and the efficient cause Why? "On account of
the direct mention of both in the sacred text." Thus, to the question,
viz. 'What was the wood, what was the tree from which they carved
out the heaven and the earth? O wise men, ask through the mind
whereon it stood supporting the worlds' (Tait. Br. 2.8.9 6¹; Ṛg.V.
10 81.4²), the answer: 'Brahman was the wood, Brahman the tree
from which they carved out the heaven and the earth. O wise men,
I tell you through the mind, it stood on Brahman supporting the
worlds' (Tait. Br. 2.8.9.6-7), directly records 'both', i.e the fact
that Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause
COMPARISON
Bhāskara
This is Sūtra 24 in his commentary. Interpretation different,
viz. 'On account of the direct mention of both (viz. origin and dissolu-
tion) by the sacred text'. That is, in Chāndogya 1.9 1 it is said that
all beings arise from and disappear into the ether. Now, here the term
'ether' stands for Brahman (as shown in Br. Sū. 1 1.22). Hence the
above passage means that all things arise from and disappear into
Brahman. But things disappear into their material cause from which
they have arisen. Hence the above passage proves that Brahman is
the material cause of everything.³
SŪTRA 26
"ON ACCOUNT OF CREATING HIMSELF, ON ACCOUNT OF TRANS-
FORMATION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Brahman alone is the efficient and the material cause of the world.
Why? "On account of creating Himself," as known from the passage:
'That itself created itself' (Tait. 2.7⁴). If it be objected: How can
the Creator be Himself the object of creation?—(We reply:) 'On
¹ P. 360, lines 2-5, vol. 2. ² P. 336, lines 8-10.
³ Bh. B. 1.4.24, p. 85. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 26.
262 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.]
account of transformation'. The omniscient and omnipotent Brah-
man, having transformed Himself into the form of the world by the
projection of His power, becomes transformed, indeed, through His
own nature, undeveloped, and possessing powers like creatorship, etc.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Brahman alone is the efficient and the material cause. Why?
"On account of creating himself " That is, in the text: 'That itself
created itself' (Tait. 2.7), He Himself is indicated as the creator of
Himself, the object of creation,—the word 'kṛti' means creation,—
on account of this. If it be objected: How can the fact that the
Creator Himself is the object of His own creation be reconcilable?—
the author replies: "On account of transformation". The omniscient
and omnipotent Supreme Soul, non-deviating in nature, transforms
Himself into the form of the world through the projection of His own
powers, consisting in His own self and superintended by Him; on
account of such a transformation everything is faultless. His powers
are infinite and natural, as established by the following scriptural
and Smṛti texts, viz. 'His supreme power is declared to be of various
kinds indeed, and natural is the operation of his knowledge and power'
(Śvet. 6.8). 'The ancient Person is possessed of a variety of powers,
and the powers of others cannot be like them', 'Hundreds of positive
powers, like creation and the rest, which are inconceivable to the com-
prehension of all beings, may belong to Brahman, O best among the
ascetics, as heat to fire' (V.P. 1.3.2 ¹). He projects them in the
beginning of creation. The best among the sacred texts of the Śvetā-
śvataras proves His non-dependence on another at the beginning of
creation, as well as His being without an equal or a superior, thus:
'His action and organ do not exist, His equal or superior is not seen'
(Śvet. 6.8). And the following scriptural and Smṛti texts are evidences
with regard to His transformation or the projection of powers: 'Just
as a spider creates and takes' (Muṇḍ. 1.1.7), 'Having entered into
pradhāna (i.e. matter) and puruṣa (i.e. soul) through His own wish,
Hari stirred up the mutable (viz. matter) and the immutable (viz.
soul) when the time of creation arrived' (V.P. 1.2.29 ²), 'Just as a
tortoise, having stretched forth its limbs, draws them in again, so the

¹ P. 22. ² P. 16.

[sū. 1. 4. 27.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 263
soul of beings swallows up again the created beings' (Mahā. 12.
7072b–7073a¹).
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
They break the sūtra into two different sūtras, viz. 'Ātmakṛteḥ'
and 'Pariṇāmāt' ²
SŪTRA 27
"AND BECAUSE (BRAHMAN) IS CELEBRATED TO BE THE SOURCE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And in the texts 'The source of beings which the wise see'
(Muṇḍ. 1.1.6 ³), 'The creator, the Lord, the person, the source of
Brahmā' (Muṇḍ 3.1.3 ⁴), Brahman "is celebrated" by the word
"source". Hence, Brahman alone is the material cause.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"Because" in the texts: 'The source of beings which the wise
see' (Muṇḍ. 1.1 6), 'The creator, the Lord, the person, the source
of Brahmā' (Muṇḍ. 3.1 3), 'This is the source of all' (Māṇḍ. 6),
Brahman "is celebrated" by the word "source", denoting the material
cause,—the material cause is none but Brahman,—this is the sense.
Hence, the doctrine of the Sāṁkhyas is not to be accepted, being
opposed as it is to the Veda. It is established that Lord Kṛṣṇa alone,
the sole topic of all the Vedas, different and non-different from the
universe, the Highest Person, the Lord, and the Lord of all, is to be
meditated on by one desirous of salvation as the non-different material
and efficient cause of the universe.
Here ends the section entitled 'The material cause' (7).
1 P 615, lines 24-25, vol. 3. Reading: 'Harate' instead of 'grasate'.
Vaṅgavāsī ed. too reads 'harate', p. 1571.
2 Śrī. B. p. 404, Part 1 ; Śk. B., pp. 564-65, Part 6.
3 Ś, R, Bh, B.
4 Op. cit.

[SŪ. 1. 4. 28.
264 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 8.]
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Śrīkaṇṭha
As before they do not take this adhikarana to be directly connected
with the refutation of the Sāṃkhya view, as Nimbārka does.¹
Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled 'The expla-
nation of all' (Sūtra 28)
SŪTRA 28
"HEREBY ALL IS EXPLAINED, EXPLAINED."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"Hereby", i.e. by the totality of the sections, 'all' the Vedāntas
'are explained' as referring to Brahman, "explained".
Here ends the fourth quarter of the first chapter of the Vedānta-
pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṃsā
texts, and composed by the reverend Nimbārka.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing the con-
cordance of all the Vedāntas with regard to Brahman by means of
extended and analogical application² "Hereby", i.e. through the
above mode of concordance, "all" Vedāntas, mentioned or non-
mentioned, should be known to be "explained" as referring to Brahman.
It should be known that the Vedas also are in concordance with
regard to Brahman alone, in accordance with the scriptural text:
'The word which all the Vedas record' (Katha 2.15); and in accordance
with the Smṛti text: '"I alone am to be known through all the
Vedas"' (Gītā 15.15). The repetition shows the end of the chapter.
Hence it is established that Lord Kṛṣṇa, the cause of the origin
and the rest of the universe, the sole topic of all the Vedas, and
¹ Vide V.K. 1.4.28, p. 142 and 1.4.27, p. 145. K.S.S. ed.
² Atideśa. For the explanation of 'atideśa' see V.K. 2.1.3.

[sū. 1. 4. 28.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 265
denoted by the terms ‘Brahman’, ‘Nārāyaṇa’ and the rest, is to be
worshipped by one, desirous of salvation, through hearing, thinking,
meditating and so on.
Here ends the section entitled ‘The explanation of all’ (8)
Here ends the fourth quarter of the first chapter of the Vedānta-
kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, and composed
by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the holy lotus-feet
of Nimbārka, the founder and teacher of the sect of the venerable
Sanatkumāra.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz they connect this adhikaraṇa more
directly with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, which Nimbārka
does not. Thus, the meaning of the sūtra according to Śaṁkara and
Bhāskara is: ‘Hereby’ (i.e. by the mode of refuting the Sāṁkhya
view), all (i.e. other doctrine like Atomism and the rest) are explained
(as negated), explained’.¹
Baladeva
Interpretation different, viz. ‘Hereby (viz. by the method indi-
cated above) all (the words like pradhāna, Śiva and the rest) are
explained (as denoting Brahman alone), explained’.²
Thus, we find that Nimbārka, Rāmānuja and Baladeva direct
the entire pāda, except the last adhikaraṇa, to the refutation of the
Sāṁkhya view, but surprisingly enough make no reference to the
Sāṁkhya view in the last adhikaraṇa, bringing in different topics.
Nimbārka and Rāmānuja speak of the general concordance of the
Vedānta texts in the last section, while Baladeva speaks of the signi-
ficance of all names.
No less surprising is the procedure of Śaṁkara and Bhāskara.
Śaṁkara finishes with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine in
adhikaraṇa 3, and takes the intervening four adhikaraṇa as concerned,
not with the refutation of the Sāṁkhya doctrine, but with the general
concordance of the Vedānta texts, etc. Then, all of a sudden, he
refers to the Sāṁkhya doctrine in the last adhikaraṇa.
¹ Ś.B. 1.4.28, p. 436; Bh. B. 1.4.27, p. 86.
² G.B. 1.4.28.