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

[SŪ. 2. 2. 41
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 381
relation with a body, and no objection can be raised here,—(we
reply:) no. "On account of enjoyment and the rest." The sense is
this: If like the individual soul, the Lord, too, has such a relation with
a body, then all the faults like experiencing pleasure and pain, and
thereby being the agent of good or bad actions and the rest must
pertain to Him also.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and others
Interpretation different, viz. "If it be argued: As in the case of
sense-organs, (we reply:) no, on account of enjoyment and the rest".
That is, if it be argued that the Lord rules over pradhāna in the same
way as the individual soul rules over its sense-organs,—we point out:
In that case the Lord Himself must undergo pleasure and pain ¹
At the end of this sūtra, Śaṁkara gives an alternative explanation
of this and the immediately preceding sūtras and this explanation
tallies with that of Nimbārka.
SŪTRA 41
"(THERE WILL RESULT ON THIS VIEW) FINITUDE OR NON-
OMNISCIENCE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If there be a connection between Him and the unseen principle,²
consisting in merit and the rest, then there must be "finitude" and
"non-omniscience" (on His part).
Vedānta-kaustubha
It cannot be said also: What objection can there be if enjoyment
and the rest result on the part of the Lord? What can a snow-flake
do when fallen on the sun?—for it is unreasonable. On account of
performing good and bad deeds, due to nescience and the cause of
transmigratory existence, and of undergoing their consequences,
there must of course result "finitude", i.e. liability to being created,
¹ Ś.B. 2.2.40, p. 570, Śrī. B. 2.2.37, p. 113, Part 2; Bh. B. 2.2.36
(written as 2.2.39), p. 128; Śk. B. 2.2.37, p. 108, Parts 7 and 8; G.B. 2.2.40.
² Adṛṣṭa.

[Sū. 2. 2. 42.
382 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 8.]
as well as "non-omniscience" on the part of the Lord; otherwise the
individual soul, too, must cease to be subject to transmigratory
existence,--so much in brief. Hence, it is established that the
stated conclusion is not contradicted by the doctrine of the Māheśvaras
Here ends the section entitled "Paśupati" (7).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
According to them, the particle "vā" means 'or' and not
'and' as held by Nimbārka. Interpretation different, viz. "(There
must be) either finitude or non-omniscience". That is, the Lord
must either define the measure of the individual souls, pradhāna and
Himself, or not define them. If He does, then they become finite;
if he does not, then the Lord becomes non-omniscient.¹
Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "Impossi-
bility of origin". (Sūtras 42–45)
SŪTRA 42
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ORIGIN."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Since the origin of the world from Śakti without Puruṣa is
impossible, the doctrine, too, which maintains it as the cause is not
valid.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, the author is refuting, incidentally, the erroneous view of
the Śāktas, viz. that Śakti alone is the producer of the world.
The particle 'no' is to be supplied.
Śakti is not the cause of the universe. Why? Because the
origin of the universe from Śakti, without any connection with Puruṣa,
is impossible. The consequence would be that the Śaktis, being
independent of Puruṣa, would come to be perceived everywhere.

¹ Ś.B. 2.2.41, pp. 571 ff.; Bh. B. 2.2.37 (written as 2.2.40), p. 128.

[sū. 2. 2. 43.
ADH. 8 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 383
Or else,¹ because the origin of the world is impossible, it being
eternal, Śakti cannot be its cause, there being no proof that the world
is something produced. If it be said that the Veda is the proof—
(we reply:) Let then the cause of the world be Brahman who is
established by the Veda. The doctrine of the causality of Śakti
which is without any basis is to be rejected.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
They take this adhikaraṇa as concerned with the refutation of the
Pañca-rātra system. Thus, according to them this sūtra means:
“On account of the impossibility of origin”. That is, the Pañca-rātra
doctrine holds that Saṃkarṣaṇa (the individual soul) springs from
Vāsudeva (the Highest self), Pradyumna (the mind) from Saṃkarṣaṇa
and Aniruddha (the principle of egoity) from Pradyumna, is not
tenable, for the individual soul, which is eternal, cannot spring from
the Highest soul.²
Rāmānuja
Rāmānuja also takes this adhikaraṇa as dealing with the Pañca-
rātra doctrine, but not refuting, but establishing, it. Accordingly,
he takes this and the next sūtra as laying down the prima facie
view, the rest the correct conclusion. Interpretation like Śaṃkara
and the rest.
SŪTRA 43
“AND THE SENSE-ORGAN OF THE CREATION (IS) NOT (POSSIBLE).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be said, there is a connection (between Śakti and Puruṣa,)—
(we reply.) No “sense-organ” is possible on the part of Puruṣa at
that time.
¹ An alternative explanation of the sūtra.
² Ś.B. 2.2.42, pp. 572 ff.; Bh. B. 2.2.38 (written as 2.2.41), p. 128; ŚK. B.
2.2.39, p. 115, Parts 7 and 8.

[SŪ. 2. 2. 44.
384 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 8.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
(If it be argued:) There is a creator helping Śakti; and the fact
that the world is something produced, too, is inferred on the analogy
of what is directly perceived; hence the above objection cannot be
raised,—then (we reply:) No "sense-organ" is possible on the part
of the creator, since there is no sense-organ prior to creation. In its
absence, it is not possible for Puruṣa to be a helper. Moreover, since
there is no similarity of the ether and the rest with pots and so on,
the fact that the former are something produced (like the latter)
is by no means established. The term "and" (in the sūtra) implies
that if there be Puruṣa as the creator, Śakti is no longer the cause.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
Criticism of the Pañca-rātra view continued: "(There can be)
no (origin) of the organ (viz. the mind) from the agent (viz. the
individual soul)" ¹
Rāmānuja
This is sūtra 40 in his commentary. As pointed out above, he
takes this sūtra as laying down a prima facie view against the Pañca-
rātra doctrine. Interpretation like Śaṃkara and others ²
SŪTRA 44
"OR IF THERE BE THE EXISTENCE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SO ON,
THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THAT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If there be the existence of natural intelligence and so on (on the
part of Śakti), what contradiction can there be in its being the cause
of the world? The doctrine of Śakti is set aside by itself through the
admission of Brahman.
¹ Ś.B. 2.2.43, p. 574; Bh. B. 2.2.39 (written as 2.2.43), p. 129, Śk. B. 2.2.40,
p. 116, Parts 7 and 8.
² Śrī. B. 2.2.40, p. 115, Part 2.

[sū. 2. 2. 44.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 385
Vedānta-kaustubha
The term "or" has the meaning 'but'. Śakti is the abode of a
mass of natural attributes like knowledge, strength and the rest,
independent by nature of anything else, and self-relying "If there
be the existence," i.e. admission, "of knowledge and so on", in this
manner, on the other hand, then "there is no denial of that", i.e. its
causality is not denied. In this aphorism: "And endowed with all
(attributes)" (Br. Sū. 2.1 29), there is designated a Deity, knowable
through all the Vedāntas, and it is He that is admitted by you. He is
not the power (Śakti) of any one, He is the Highest Deity, denoted by
the word 'Brahman' and so on. The sense is that the doctrine of
Śakti defeats itself.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
The criticism of the Pañca-rātra doctrine continued: viz "(Even)
if there be the existence of knowledge, there is no setting aside of that
(viz. of the above objection)". That is, even if be said that Saṃkarṣaṇa
and the rest are not the individual soul and so on, but divine beings,
endowed with supreme knowledge and the rest, still then the objection
stated before, viz the impossibility of origination, remains in force.¹
Rāmānuja
This is sūtra 41 in his commentary. According to him this 'sūtra
and the next set forth the correct conclusion against the above prima
facie view, and defend the Pañca-rātra doctrine. Thus, it means:
"If (Saṃkarṣaṇa and the rest be) of the nature of knowledge and so
on (i.e. of the Highest Lord), there is no contradiction of that". That
is, the Pañca-rātra doctrine is not that individual soul arises from the
Lord, the mind from the individual soul, and so on, but simply that the
Highest Lord, viz. Vāsudeva, out of kindness for people, abides in a
four-fold form, so that He may be easily accessible to His devotees.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 41 in his commentary as well He takes it to be a
prima facie view, viz. "If there be the assumption of intelligence and
1 Ś.B. 2.2.41, pp. 574 ff.; Bh. B. 2.2.40 (written 2 2.44), p. 129.
2 Śrī. B. 2.2.41, pp. 116-117, Part 2.
25

[SŪ. 2. 2. 45.
386 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 8.]
so on (i.e. of the forms of the individual soul and so on), there is no
contradiction of that". That is, the opponents point out that they
do not hold that there is the origin of the individual soul and the rest,
but simply that Samkarsana and the rest assume the forms of the
individual soul, etc., i e. rule them Hence the above objection
cannot be raised.¹
Baladeva
Interpretation different: "If (the body of the Lord be of the)
nature of intelligence and the rest, there is no contradiction of that".
That is, if the prima facie objector points out that although the Lord
cannot have a material body, yet He may have a non-material body
composed of knowledge and so on, then we reply that if the Lord of
the Śāktas be possessed of such a body, then we have no objection to
their view, since it becomes identical with our doctrine of Brahman.
SŪTRA 45
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRADICTION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And on account of being opposed to Scripture and Smṛti, the
doctrine of Śakti is unauthoritative
Here ends the second quarter of the second chapter in the Vedānta-
pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā
texts, and composed by the reverend Nimbārka.
Vedānta-kaustubha
And because of being opposed to the following scriptural and
Smṛti texts: 'Person, verily, is all this' (Śvet. 3.15), 'Supreme is
His power, declared to be of manifold; natural is the operation of
His knowledge and strength' (Śvet. 6 8), '"I am the origin of all,
everything originates from me"' (Gītā 10.8), and so on, the doctrine of
1 Śk. B. 2.2.41, p. 116, Parts 7 and 8.

[sū. 2. 2. 45.
ADH. 8 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 387
the causality of Śakti is not to be accepted by one who is desirous of
salvation. Hence, it is established that the concordance of the
scriptural texts with regard to Brahman, Lord Kṛṣṇa, the lord of all
and the soul of all, is not contradicted by anything whatsoever.
Here ends the section entitled "Impossibility of origin" (8).
Here ends the second quarter of the second chapter in the Vedānta-
kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, and composed
by the reverend Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of the holy
Nimbārka, the teacher and founder of the sect of the venerable
Sanatkumāra.
——————
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Criticism of the Pañca-rātra doctrine concluded: "(The Pañca-
rātra doctrine is to be rejected), because it is full of (inner) contradic-
tions; and (because it contains passages opposed to the Veda)".¹
Rāmānuja
Right conclusion, in defence of the Pañca-rātra doctrine, ends
here. "(The above objection cannot be raised) on account of the
contradiction (i.e. becasue the Pañca-rātra doctrine itself controverts
that the individual soul has an origin".²
Bhāskara
This sūtra is not found in his commentary
Śrīkaṇṭha
Criticism of the Pañca-rātra doctrine concluded : "(In reply to the
above prima facie view, we point out although the contradiction with
regard to the origin of the individual soul and the rest set aside by
the above view, yet the Pañca-rātra doctrine is not to be accounted)
on account of its opposition (to Scripture).³

¹ Ś.B. 2.2.45, pp. 575-76.
² Śrī. B. 2.2 42, pp 117 ff., Part 2
³ Śk. B 2 2.42, pp. 116–119, Parts 7 and 8.

388 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 2. 2. 45.
ADH. 8 ]
Résumé
The second section of the second chapter contains:—

1. 45 sūtras and 8 adhikaranas, according to Nimbārka;
2. 45 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṁkara;
3. 42 sūtras and 8 adhikaranas, according to Rāmānuja;
4. 40 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara;
   5 42 sūtras and 8 adhikaranas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha,
   6 45 sūtras and 8 adhikaranas, according to Baladeva.
   Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha read sūtras 1 and 2 in Nimbārka's
   commentary as one sūtra, and omit sūtras 31 and 38 in Nimbārka-
   bhāṣya.

SECOND CHAPTER (Adhyāya)
THIRD QUARTER (Pāda)
Adhikaraṇa 1: The section entitled "The
ether". (Sūtras 1-6)
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 1)
SŪTRA 1
"THE ETHER (DOES) NOT (ORIGINATE), ON ACCOUNT OF NON-
MENTION IN SCRIPTURE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
That there is no contradiction in our own view has been proved by
means of the views of the opponents. Now, it is being proved that
there is no mutual non-contradiction among the scriptural texts.
"The ether" does "not" originate. Why? Because in the
Chāndogya its origin is not mentioned.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, having demonstrated that the views of the opponents are
based on a mere semblance of (and not real) reason, now with a view
to generating intense reverence for Brahman, the cause of the world,
on the part of those who are desirous of salvation, (the author) is
demonstrating the origin of the ether and the rest, His effects, as well
as the mutual consistency among the scriptural texts (about them).
On the doubt, viz. whether the ether originates or not, the prima
facie view is as follows: "The ether" does not originate. Why?
"On account of non-mention in Scripture." Thus in the Chāndogya,
the creation of three only—viz. light, water and food, without the
ether and the air, is mentioned in the section concerned about creation
in the passage beginning: 'He created that Light' (Chānd. 6.2.3).

390 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 2. 3. 2-3.
ADH. 1.]
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 2)
SŪTRA 2
‘BUT (THERE) IS (A TEXT DESIGNATING THE ORIGIN OF THE
ETHER)’
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the Taittirīyaka, there “is” a text designating the origin of
the ether, viz ‘From the soul the ether originated’ (Tait. 2.1¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
To this we reply·
The term “but” implies the acceptance of the correct conclusion.
If it be objected that in the Chāndogya there is no text about the
origin of ether, (we reply.) in the Taittirīya there “is” a text designat-
ing the origin of the ether, viz. “From this soul, verily, the ether
originated (Tait. 2.1)
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtras 3-4)
SŪTRA 3
“(THE TEXT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE ETHER IS) METAPHORICAL,
ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOSSIBILITY, AND ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIPTURAL
TEXT”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Because the origin of the ether, which is without parts, is
impossible, and also because of the scriptural text· ‘The air and the
atmosphere—this is mortal’ (Bṛh. 2.3.3 ²)—the text: ‘The ether
originated’ (Tait. 2.1) is “metaphorical”.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, intending to remove the apparent contradictions among
those scriptural texts which designate the origin of the ether and those
which do not, His Holiness here raises a doubt based on the view of
those who hold that the ether does not originate
An objection may be raised: The scriptural text designating the
origin of the ether, viz. ‘From this soul, verily, the ether originated’
(Tait. 2.1), can be (only) “metaphorical”, just as in ordinary life,
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

[sū. 2. 3. 4.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 391
the statement 'The ether acts' is metaphorical. The reason for this
is: "on account of impossibility", i e. because the origin of the ether
which without parts is impossible, seeing that the earth and the rest
alone, which are possessed of parts, can originate from the atoms of
the same class The second reason is: "on account of scriptural
text", i.e on account of the scriptural text 'The air and the atmos-
phere—this is immortal' (Bṛh 2 3 3)
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
They divide this sūtra into two different sūtras—viz "Gauny
asambhavāt" and "Śabdāc ca".¹
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded)
SŪTRA 4
"AND THERE MAY BE (THE USE) OF THE SAME (TERM 'ORIGINATED'
IN TWO DIFFERENT SENSES), AS IN THE CASE OF THE WORD
'BRAHMAN'"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
But the same term 'originated' "may be" used in a metaphorical
sense with reference to the ether, and in a literal sense with reference to
the subsequent (elements),² as in the case of "Desire to enquire
after Brahman by austerity, austerity is Brahman" (Tait. 3 2³)
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected How can one and the same word 'originated'
be used in a metaphorical sense with reference to the ether, and in a
literal sense with reference to what follows, we reply.
Just as in the text 'Desire to know Brahman by austerity, austerity
is Brahman' (Tait. 3.2), the word 'Brahman' is used in a figurative
sense in reference to austerity, but in a literal sense as the object to be
¹ Ś B., pp. 579-80, Bh B., p 130.
² Viz. the air, fire, water, earth, etc. mentioned in Tait. 2.1 subsequently
to the ether. That is, the expression 'The ether originates' is to be understood
metaphorically, while the expressions 'The air originates' and the rest literally.
³ Ś, Bh, Śk, B.

392 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 5.
ADH. 1 ]
enquired into, so one and the same word 'originated' may be used in
a figurative sense in reference to the ether, and in a literal sense in
reference to what follows.
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 5)
SŪTRA 5
"(THERE IS) NON-ABANDONMENT OF THE INITIAL PROPOSITION, ON
ACCOUNT OF NON-SEPARATION (KNOWN) FROM SCRIPTURAL TEXT ''
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the non-separation" of the mass of objects,
beginning with the ether, from Brahman, there is no contradiction
of the "initial proposition", viz. that there is the knowledge of all
through the knowledge of one. But if the ether be something non-
originated, then it must be outside the sphere of knowable objects, and
thereby the initial proposition will be set aside. The non-separation
of everything from Brahman is known "from the scriptural text", viz.
'Everything has that for its soul' (Chānd. 6.8.7 ¹), and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author states the correct conclusion.
The Taittirīya-text, designating the origin of the ether, is literal
and not figurative for the following reason. If the origin of the universe,
beginning with the ether, be admitted, then "on account of the non-
separation" or non-difference of the effect, or of the entire expanse of
the universe beginning with the ether, from the object to be known,
the cause, viz. Brahman,—as of the leaf from the tree,—then alone,
there will be "non-abandonment" or acceptance of the initial pro-
position, viz. that there is the knowledge of all through the knowledge
of one, stated in the passage 'Whereby the unheard becomes heard,
unthought becomes thought' (Chānd 6.1.3), otherwise, the initial
proposition will be abandoned.
The cause of non-separation is. "On account of scriptural text",
i.e on account of the texts: 'The existent alone, my dear, was this in
the beginning, one only, without a second' (Chānd 6 2.1), 'Every-
thing has that for its soul' (Chānd. 6.8.7, etc ), and so on.
¹ Ś, Bh, B.

[sū. 2. 3. 6.
ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 393
The allegation stated under the aphorism 'Metaphorical, on
account of impossibility and on account of scriptural text' (Br Sū.
2.3 3), viz that the origin of what is without parts being impossible,
the scriptural text designating the origin of the ether is metaphorical,—
is not tenable, since reasoning has no scope with regard to matters
which are beyond the cognizance of the senses and are determined by
Scripture. But how can then the text: 'The air and the atmosphere—
this is immortal' (Brh. 2.3 3) be accountable? In this passage the
permanency of the ether is established on the analogy of the statement
'The gods are immortal', and hence the immortality of the ether fits in.
The allegation made under the aphorism: "And there may be
(the use) of the same (term in two different senses), as in the case of
the word 'Brahman'" (Br. Sū. 2.3.4), too, is not tenable, since the
word 'Brahman' being mentioned twice, the example is not to the
point.¹
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
They break this sūtra into two parts—viz. "Pratijñāhānir . . .'
and "Śabdebhyaḥ". The meaning of the last portion is different, viz
(That the ether has an origin is known) from scriptural text (also).²
CORRECT CONCLUSION (end)
SŪTRA 6
"BUT AS FAR AS THERE IS EFFECT, THERE IS DIVISION, AS IN
ORDINARY LIFE"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The author concludes: It being established by the texts 'All
this has that for its soul' (Chānd 6.8.7, etc.³) and the rest that the
¹ In Tait. 2.1, the term 'originated' is mentioned only once, while in the
analogical passage quoted, the term 'Brahman' is mentioned twice separately.
Hence, while it may be said that of the two separately mentioned words 'Brahman',
one is literal, the other figurative, it cannot be said that the word 'originated'
which is mentioned only once, is simultaneously literal and figurative.
² Śrī. B. 125, Part 2; Śk B., pp 124-125, Parts 7 and 8.
³ R, Śk, B.

[SŪ. 2. 3. 6.
394 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.]
entire expanse of the universe, beginning with the ether, has Brahman
for its soul, it is definitely ascertained that the ether is an effect.
Likewise, it is known that "as far as there is effect" there is origin
indeed.¹ The non-mention of the ether and the mention of light
and the rest as objects to be created in the text: "He created that
light" (Chānd. 6.2.3) fit in, "as in ordinary life". In ordinary life,
when referring to the group of Devadatta's sons the origin of some
of them is mentioned, thereby the origin of all the rest is mentioned.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. since in the Chāndogya there is no indication
of the origin of the ether, the scriptural text designating origin is
metaphorical,—(the author) replies:
The term "but" is for disposing of the objection "As far as
there is effect", i.e. the entire expanse of the universe, there is
"division" indeed. The Chāndogya texts, viz. ' "The existent, alone,
my dear, was this in the beginning"' (Chānd. 6.2.1), and ' "Whereby
the unheard becomes heard, the unthought becomes thought, the
unknown known"' (Chānd. 6 1.3) designate (respectively) that
everything, beginning with the ether, and denoted by the term 'this'
consisted of the cause in essence prior to creation, and is knowable
through the knowledge of the cause. Hence, in the Chāndogya the
"division", i.e. the origin, of the entire expanse of the universe,
beginning with the ether, from the cause, is indeed stated.
To the enquiry: Why then the origin of the light and the rest
alone is mentioned, without any mention of the ether and the air?—
we reply. "As in ordinary life". Just as in ordinary life, through
the mention of the origin of some sons of a person, there may be the
mention of the origin of all the rest, so through the statement of the
origin of light and the rest, the origin of the ether and so on, too,
is indeed mentioned. Hence, it is established that the ether has
Brahman for its material cause.
Here ends the section entitled "The ether" (1).
¹ I. e. whatever is an effect has an origin.

[sū. 2. 3. 7.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 395
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 7 in their commentaries The interpretation of the
word "vibhāga" is different. According to them it means 'division',
and not "origin" as held by Nimbārka. Thus they argue:—
Whatever is an effect is divided.
The ether is divided (from the earth and so on).
∴ the ether is an effect ¹
But Nimbārka argues:—
Whatever is an effect has an origin
The ether is an effect.
∴ the ether has an origin.
Thus, they establish what Nimbārka assumes (viz. that the
ethor is an effect).
The interpretation of the phrase "As in ordinary life" too is
different, viz. they connect it with the preceding part of the sūtra,
meaning—In ordinary life we observe that whatever is an effect is
divided.
—————
Adhikaraṇa 2 The section entitled "The Air".
(Sūtra 7)
SŪTRA 7
"HEREBY (THE ORIGIN OF) THE AIR (TOO) IS EXPLAINED."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
By this principle of the origin of the ether, the air, too, is explained.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Some may attribute eternity to the air on the ground of the texts:
'The air and the atmosphere—this is immortal' (Bṛh. 2.3.2), 'The
divinity which does not set is the air' (Bṛh. 1.5 22) and so on. For
disposing of this (view), the author says now:
"Hereby", 1 e. by the establishment of the origin of the ether,
the origin of the "air", too, should be known to be "explained",
————————————————————————————————————
¹ Ś.B. 2.3.7, p. 586; Bh. B. 2.3.7, p. 131.

396 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 8.
ADH. 3.]
the refutation of the prima facie view being the same (in both cases).
The denial of the dissolution (of the air) by the phrase 'does not set'
is (only) relative. Hence, it is established that the air has an origin.
Here ends the section entitled "The Air" (2).
Adhikaraṇa 3. The section entitled "Non-
origination". (Sūtra 8)
SŪTRA 8
"BUT THERE IS NON-ORIGINATION OF THE EXISTENT BEING, ON
ACCOUNT OF IMPOSSIBILITY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is indeed "non-origination", i.e. non-production, "of the
existent being", i.e of Brahman, because the origin of the cause of the
world is impossible.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the author is removing the suspicion, viz. If even the ether
and the air, designated by Scripture as immortal, be originated, then
there may be the origin of Brahman too
There is indeed "non-origin", i.e. no birth, of Brahman, the
Highest Person. Why? "On account of impossibility," i.e. because
the origin of the cause of all is impossible,—otherwise, there must be
a cause of that too, a cause of that too and so on, and there must be
an infinite regress;—because (He) is declared to be the cause of all by
the text: 'He is the cause, the cause of the lord of causes' ¹ (Śvet.
6 9); and because any other cause is excluded by the passage: 'Of
him there is no producer and lord' (Śvet. 6 9). For this very reason,
it is established that there is no origin of the Supreme Person, who is
ever-present and unborn indeed, though declared by Scripture to be
¹ Correct quotation: "Karṇādhipādhipa", meaning 'The Lord of the lord
of sense-organs, (viz. the individual soul)'. Vide Śvet. 6.9, p. 70.

[SŪ. 2. 3. 9.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 397
manifold for the sake of producing effects, thus: ‘Being unborn, he
appears manifold’ (Vj. S 31.19b ¹; Tait. Ār. 3.13.1b ²).
Here ends the section entitled “Non-origination” (3).
COMPARISON
Bhāskara
This is sūtra 9 in his commentary. Interpretation absolutely
different, viz. ‘But (if it be objected that qualities like touch, sound,
etc., as well as space, time, number, size, etc., are not declared by
Scripture to have an origin, and hence they must all be eternal,—
then we reply. The eternity of what is existent (viz. qualities, etc.)
is impossible, because of the non-fitting in (i.e. non-utility) (of the
scriptural texts to declare their origin). That is, it is not at all
necessary for Scripture to designate separately the origin of these
qualities, etc. since it is quite sufficient to designate the origin of the
objects alone, that implying the origin of the qualities simultaneously.
Similarly, time is nothing but the motion of the sun and hence its
origin, though not mentioned separately, is implied by the mention
of the origin of the sun. Likewise the other things are to be explained.
In conclusion Bhāskara criticizes Śaṃkara's interpretation of the
sūtra,—which is identical with Nimbārka's.³
Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled “The
light”. (Sūtras 9–13)
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtras 9–12)
SŪTRA 9
“HENCE THE LIGHT (ORIGINATES FROM THE AIR), FOR THUS
(SCRIPTURE) DECLARES.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“The light” originates from the air, in accordance with the
scriptural text: ‘Fire from the air’ (Tait. 2.1 ⁴).
¹ P. 857, line 17. Reading “vijāyate”. ² P. 201. Reading op. cit.
³ Bh. B. 2.2.9, pp. 131-32. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

398 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 10.
ADH 4.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been pointed out above that everything except Brahman
has origin, and that Brahman is untouched by the faults of producible-
ness and the rest. Now, the problem is being considered, viz. whether
each preceding object, or Brahman, its inner soul, is the cause of each
succeeding object, to be produced successively
On the doubt, viz whether the light originates from the air or
from Brahman, its (viz. the air's) inner soul,—the prima facie view
is as follows The light is an effect. Hence, it originates from the
immediate cause air. The prima facie objector points out the authority
for this thus. The Taittirīya text 'From the air fire' (Tait 2.1)
"declares that" alone.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva
This is sūtra 10 in the commentaries of the first two. They do
not take this sūtra as laying down a prima facie view, but as the correct
conclusion. It means, therefore: "The light (does not arise directly
from the Lord, but from the air), for thus (Scripture) declares".¹
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued)
SŪTRA 10
"WATER (ORIGINATES FROM THE LIGHT)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"Water" originates from light, in accordance with the scriptural
text: 'Water from fire' (Tait. 2.1 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
The phrase: 'Hence, for thus' is to be supplied here. Hence, i.e.
on account of the very proximity, water originates from light. The
scriptural text: 'Water from fire' (Tait. 2.1 ³) declares that very
thing.
¹ Ś.B. 2.3.10, p. 594; Bh. B 2.3.10, p. 132; G.B. 2.3.9.
² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.
³ Op. cit.

[sū. 2. 3. 11-12.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 399
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva
This is sūtra 11 in the commentaries of the first two. As before
they do not take this as a prima facie sūtra, but as a siddhānta one,
meaning: “Water (originates from light)”.¹
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued)
SŪTRA 11
“THE EARTH (ORIGINATES FROM WATER).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The earth originates from water, in accordance with the scriptural
text: ‘They (viz waters) created food’ (Chānd 6.2 4²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
The earth originates from water. The scriptural text: ‘Those
waters thought: “May we procreate”. They created food’ (Chānd.
6 2 4) declares this. Similarly, it should be known that everywhere
the origin of the effect takes place from the immediately preceding
cause.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva
This sūtra is not found in their commentaries.
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded)
SŪTRA 12
“(THE WORD ‘FOOD’ DENOTES) THE EARTH, ON ACCOUNT OF
SUBJECT-MATTER, COLOUR AND ANOTHER SCRIPTURAL TEXT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
By the term ‘food’ “the earth” is denoted, because the subject-
matter is the (creation of the) great elements; because its colour is
¹ Ś B. 2.3.11, p. 596; Bh. B. 2.3 11, p. 132, G.B. 2.3.10.
² R, Śk

[sū. 2. 3. 13.
400 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.]
declared by the scriptural text: 'What is black is of the food'
(Chānd. 6.4.1 ¹); and, finally, because of another scriptural text:
'The earth from water' (Tait. 2.1 ²)
Vedānta-kaustubha
Incidentally, the meaning of the word 'food', mentioned in the
scriptural text. 'They created the food' (Chānd. 6.2.4), is being
indicated through the prima facie objector himself. In accordance
with the complementary text, viz 'Wherever it rains, then there is
plenty of food' (Chānd. 6.2.4), rice, barley, and the like are not
meant by the word 'food', but the earth alone is the object denoted by
the word 'food'. Why? 'On account of subject-matter, colour, and
another scriptural text,' that is, because in accordance with the text:
'He created that light, He created that water' (Chānd. 6.2 3),
the subject-matter here is the origin of the great element; because in
the complementary passage: 'That which is the red colour of fire is
the colour of the light; that which is white is of water, that which is
black is of the food' (Chānd. 6.4.1) the colour (of the earth is men-
tioned); and because there are other scriptural texts occurring in
connection with the same topic, viz. 'Water from fire, the earth from
water' (Tait. 2.1), 'What was the froth of the earth became solidified.
That became the earth' (Bṛh. 1 2.2).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva
This is sūtra 12 in the commentaries of the first two, and sūtra 11
in the commentary of the last Interpretation same, though not a
prima facie view.
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 13)
SŪTRA 13
"BUT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DESIRE, ON ACCOUNT OF HIS MARK,
HE (IS THE CREATOR) "
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The author states the correct conclusion. "On account of His
desire," viz. '"May I be many"' (Chānd. 6.2.3), as well as on account
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ² R, Bh, Śk, B.