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

[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.

[sū. 2. 3. 13.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 401
of the scriptural text teaching Him,—the Supreme Person, their inner
soul, is the creator of their effects.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author states the correct conclusion.
The prima facie view is rejected by the term "but". "He"
alone, i.e. Lord Vāsudeva, the supreme cause and the Lord of all and
the inner soul of the air and the rest, is the creator of the effects like
light and the rest. Why ? "On account of His desire," i.e. on account
of the desire, or resolve, of Him, or of the Highest Person, viz.: ‘"May
I be many" ’ (Chānd. 6.2.3); (and) "On account of His mark",
i.e. on account of the group of texts teaching Him, viz. 'Abiding
within the earth' (Bṛh. 3.7.3), 'He who abiding within water'
(Bṛh. 3 7 4), 'He who abiding within the light' (Bṛh. 3.7 14),
'He who abiding within the air' (Bṛh. 3.7.7) 'He who abiding
within the ether' (Bṛh. 3.7.12), 'That itself created itself' (Tait
2.7) and so on. Hereby it should be known that in the passages 'That
light thought' (Chānd. 6.2.3), 'Those waters perceived' (Chānd.
6.2.4) and so on too, the thinking of the Supreme Being alone (is
mentioned). Hence, it is established that no independent creatorship
belongs to anything else,—it is the Supreme Soul alone who is the
primary creator everywhere.
Here ends the section entitled "The light" (4).
COMPARISON
All others read "Tad-abhidhyānād eva tu", adding an "eva".
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation same, though they do not take this sūtra as
answering to a prima facie view. This sūtra, according to them,
removes the suspicion, that might have arisen from the above designa-
tion of the successive production of elements, viz. that the elements
give rise to other elements by themselves. The fact is that it is the
Lord himself abiding within those elements that gives rise to the
next effect.¹
¹ Ś.B. 2.3.13, pp. 598 ff.; Bh. B. 2.3.13, p. 133 ; G.B. 2.3.12.
26

[SŪ. 2. 3. 14.
402 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
Adhikarana 5: The section entitled “The
reverse”. (Sūtra 14)
SŪTRA 14
“BUT THE ORDER (OF DISSOLUTION) (IS) REVERSE TO THAT, AND
(THIS) FITS IN.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The order of dissolution is reverse “to that”, i e. to the order of
creation”, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘The earth merged
in water’ (Subāla 2.4¹). “And” this “fits in” on the principle of
salt and water.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, the order of the origin of elements has been determined in
brief. Now, incidentally, their order of dissolution is being determined.
On the doubt as to whether the order of dissolution is the same as
the order of creation, or reverse, the suggestion being: Since even
when the prior created object is destroyed, the posterior one is possible,
(dissolution takes place) through the same order as that of origination
alone.—
(The author) states the correct conclusion: “But the order is
reverse to that”. The order of dissolution must be understood to be
the “reverse” “to that”, i.e. to the order of the origination of objects,
which is mentioned in Scripture in the text: ‘From this soul, verily,
the ether originated, from the ether the air, from the air the fire,
from the fire water, from water the earth’ (Tait. 2.1), ‘“What was,
then, existent?” He said, to them: “Neither being, nor non-being,
nor being and non-being. From him darkness arises, from darkness
bhūtādi,² from bhūtādi the ether, from the ether the air, from
the air the fire, from the fire water, from water the earth.
That egg arose”’ (Subāla 1.1–3); and which is established by a
thousand Smṛti passages, viz. ‘The divinity is without beginning and
without end, likewise, indivisible, ageless, immortal; celebrated to be
unmanifest, constant, likewise undecaying, and immortal; sprung
up from whom beings are born and die. That divinity first created
what is called mahat from name, the great ahaṁkāra as well. Mahat

¹ P. 465.
² Or the tāmasa ahaṁkāra. Vide V.R.M., p 25.

[SŪ. 2. 3. 14.
ADH. 5 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 403
created ahaṃkāra. Then the Lord, the Master, who is the support of
all elements, (created) what is celebrated to be the ether From the
ether originated water, from water fire and air, then from the conjunc-
tion of fire and air the earth originated’, and so on. And this "fits
in" on the ground of the scriptural text: ‘The earth merges in water,
water merges in the fire, the fire merges in the air, the air merges in
the ether, the ether into the sense-organs, the sense-organs in the
subtle essences, the subtle essences in bhūtādi, bhūtādi in mahat,
mahat in the unmanifest’ (Subāla 2.4), on the ground of the following
Smṛti passage, viz. ‘The earth, the support of the world, merges,
divine sage, in water, water merges in the fire, the fire merges in
the air’; and on the ground of observing salt, ice and the like to be
dissolved into water. What is not mentioned, by the text about
creation, in the order of the origination of prakṛti, mahat, ahaṃkāra,
the ether and so on, is to be supplied from the text about dissolution;
i e. the construction is: ‘The ether (merges in) the sense-organs, the
sense-organs in the subtle essences, the subtle essences in bhūtādi’.
The ether merges in the subtle essences, the subtle essences merge in
bhūtādi, i.e. in tāmasa ahaṃkāra, the sense-organs in sense-organs, i e
in the rājasa ahaṃkāra,—since here by the word ‘sense-organ’
ahaṃkāra is understood there being non-difference between cause and
effect. The plural number, viz. ‘subtle essences’ is meant for showing
that the dissolution of the earth and the rest takes place through the
subtle essences of smell and the rest. On account of the three-foldness
of ahaṃkāra, the plural number, viz. ‘In the sense-organs’, has been
used. Thus, it is established that dissolution, taking place in the
above inverted order, is not contradicted by anything whatsoever.
Here ends the section entitled “The reverse” (5).
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Baladeva
This is sūtra 15 in Rāmānuja’s commentary. He does not begin
a new adhikaraṇa here, concerned with the order of dissolution, but
continues the topic of the order of evolution. Thus the sūtra means
according to him: And the order (of the origination of the vital-
breath and the rest), on the contrary, (stated) in a reverse order (to

404 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [Sū. 2 3. 15.
ADH. 6.]
the real order of succession) fits in (only if there be the origination of
all effects directly) from thence (i e. Brahman)
That is, in Scripture we have many passages which designate the
vital-breath and the rest as rising directly from Brahman, in opposition
to the real order of evolution, viz. prakṛti, mahat, and so on; and
these texts are explicable only on the supposition that everything really
arises from Brahman directly.¹
This is sūtra 13 in Baladeva's commentary, who follows Rāmānuja
exactly with the difference that he takes this sūtra as constituting an
adhikaraṇa by itself.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 15 in his commentary, reading different, viz.
substitutes "pāramparyeṇa", in place of "viparyyayeṇa". Interpre-
tation too different, viz. he begins a new adhikaraṇa here, ending with
the next sūtra, and concerned with the question of the origin of sense-
organs, mind and the like,—which according to Nimbārka begins with
the next sūtra.³
Adhikaraṇa 6: The section entitled "Knowledge
which intervenes" (Sūtra 15)
SŪTRA 15
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT KNOWLEDGE AND MIND (MUST BE
PLACED) BETWEEN (BRAHMAN AND THE ELEMENTS) ON ACCOUNT
OF ITS INDICATION (IN SCRIPTURAL TEXT), (AND THAT THE ABOVE
ORDER OF CREATION IS SET ASIDE) BY (THIS) ORDER, (WE REPLY;)
NO, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DIFFERENCE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected: "On account of the indication", viz. 'From
him arise the vital-breath, the mind, and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ.
2 1.3⁴), "knowledge and mind" must be between Brahman and the
elements; and "by the order" obtained in this way the above-
mentioned order is contradicted,—
¹ Śrī. B. 2.3.15, p. 131, Part 2.
² G.B. 2.3.13, p. 177, Chap. 2.
³ Śk. B. 2.3.15, pp. 135-36, Parts 7 and 8. ⁴ Ś, R, B, Śk, B.

[sū. 2. 3. 15.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 405
(We reply ) “no”, because the above text is not concerned with
a specific order, and because the text: ‘From him arise the vital-
breath, the mind and all sense-organs’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3) (is concerned
with laying down only) “the non-difference” of the origin of knowledge
and mind as well as of the ether and the rest from Brahman alone.¹
In the text under discussion, viz.: ‘From this soul, verily, the ether
originated’ (Tait 2.1²), establishing the order of the creation of ele-
ments,—in between the soul and the ether, the categories of the unmani-
fest, mahat and ahaṁkāra, well-known from texts concerned with the
orders of creation and dissolution and figuratively implied by the
phrase “knowledge and mind” (in the sūtra), are to be known,—so
much in brief.
Vedānta-kaustubha
With a view to encouraging meditation, and generating reverence
for Brahman, Lord Vāsudeva, the place from which the world emanates
and into which it enters; as well as for generating an aversion to the
world, the orders of creation and dissolution have been determined
Now, the order of the origin of knowledge and mind, which promote
meditation, is being established in harmony with the order of the
origin of elements.
If it be objected: The above-mentioned order of the origin of
elements is set aside by the order of the origin of knowledge and mind.
Thus, knowledge is that through which a thing is known, i.e. sense-
organ. The sense-organs and the mind must be in between Brahman
and the elements. Why? “On account of its indication.” An
indication (liṅga) or a mark is that through which something is painted,³
i.e. known, an indication of that, i.e. of creation, on account of that; ⁴
that is, on account of the scriptural text indicating their creation,
viz. ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the mind, and all sense-
organs, the ether, the air, the fire, water and the earth, the support
of all’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3). Hence the above-mentioned order is set aside
by it —

¹ I.e. the above Mund text simply shows that just as the ether, etc. rise from
Brahman, so exactly do the sense-organs, the mind, etc. too,—but does not lay
down a definite order of creation. See V.K. below.
² Not quoted by others in this connection.
³ Root √ling = to paint.
⁴ This explains the compound “tal-liṅgāt”.

[sū. 2. 3. 15
406 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.]
(We reply.) “No”. Why ? “On account of non-difference,”
i.e. because of the non-difference of the origin of knowledge and mind,
as well as of the ether and the rest, from Brahman alone. The text:
‘From him arise the vital-breath’ (Muṇḍ. 2 1 3) and so on simply
points out that there is the origin of all from Brahman, and is not set
aside by the above-mentioned order. In the very same manner,
scriptural texts like: ‘He created the vital-breath, from the vital-
breath reverence, the ether, the air, the fire, water, the earth, the sense-
organs, the mind, food’ (Praśna 6.4) and so on, designate that every-
thing arises from Brahman, and do not set forth a particular order.
The meaning of the word ‘vital-breath’ in the passage. ‘From him
arise the vital-breath, the mind and all sense-organs’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3)
will become clear later on.¹ And, thus it is established that in the
aphorism. “But there is” (Br. Sū. 2 3 2), only a portion (of the real
order of creation) has been mentioned by the author of the aphorisms.
So, in the abridged texts designating the order of the origination of
elements, such as: ‘From the soul the ether originated’ (Tait. 2.1)
and so on, the portions not mentioned, viz. prakṛti, mahat and the
rest, established by other texts concerned about creation and dissolu-
tion, and figuratively implied by the phrase “knowledge and mind”
(in the sūtra), are necessarily understood; but there is no contradiction
whatsoever of the texts designating the order of the origination of
elements by other texts.
Here ends the section entitled “Knowledge which intervenes” (6).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
The interpretation of the word “aviśeṣāt” different, viz. “On
account of the non-difference (of the organs from the elements)”.
That is, the organs being of the same nature as the elements, the
origination of the former is the same as that of the latter, and not
different.²
¹ Vide Br. Sū. 2.4.9.
² Ś.B. 2.3.15, p. 602.

[sū. 2. 3. 16.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 407
Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled “The soul”.
(Sūtras 16-17)
SŪTRA 16
“BUT THAT DESIGNATION (OF THE SOUL AS BEING BORN OR DYING)
MUST DEPEND ON (I.E. REFER TO) THE MOBILE AND IMMOBILE
(BODIES), (IT IS) METAPHORICAL (IN REFERENCE TO THE SOUL),
BECAUSE (THERE IS) THE EXISTENCE (OF BIRTH AND DEATH) IF
THERE BE THE EXISTENCE OF THAT (I E. THE BODY).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The nature of the individual soul is being determined now. “The
designation” like: ‘Devadatta is born and dead’ is metaphorical, and
as such “depends on the mobile and the immobile”,—there being the
“existence” of birth and death when there is the “existence” of the
body.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been pointed out above that the ether and the rest originate
from Brahman, the unborn, the highest. Now the problem is being
considered, viz. whether like them the individual soul, too, is some-
thing to be produced or not.
The word ‘soul’ is to be supplied from the immediately following
aphorism. On the doubt, viz. whether the ‘soul’, i e. the individual
soul, originates or not, the prima facie view, viz. In conformity with
the designation, viz. ‘Devadatta is born and dead’, the soul is born
and dies,—is disposed of by the term “but”. This conventional
designation of the origination and dissolution of the soul “must be
metaphorical”, i.e. is figurative in reference to the individual soul.
To the enquiry: In reference to what then is it literal?—(the author)
replies· “Dependent on the mobile and the immobile”, i.e. it refers to
the bodies of the movable and the immovable. Why? “Because
(there is) existence, if there be the existence of that,” i.e. because
there can be origination and dissolution only if there be the existence
of that, i e. the body, in accordance with the scriptural text· ‘This
person being born and obtaining a body . . . He departing and
dying’ (Bṛh. 4.3.8)
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja
This is sūtra 17 in his commentary. He does not begin a new
adhikaraṇa here, but concludes the topic of the order of evolution.

[sū. 2. 3. 17.
408 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.]
He reads both "bhākta" and "abhākta" and gives two explanations
accordingly. Thus (1) But the designation which depends on
(i.e. refers to) the movable and the immovable must be secondary,
because of being permeated by the being of that (viz. Brahman).
(Here he reads "bhākta".) That is, all the words denoting movable
and immovable objects are only secondary with regard to those
objects, but really denote Brahman, since all objects are modes of
Brahman, (2) or, all the terms denoting movable and immovable
objects are primary with regard to Brahman, because the denotative
power of all terms depends on the being of Brahman. (Here he reads
"abhākta".) ¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 17 in his commentary as well. He reads "abhākta",
takes this sūtra as an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets it exactly
like Rāmānuja.²
Baladeva
This is sūtra 15 in his commentary. He also reads "abhākta",
takes it as an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets on the whole
like Rāmānuja. Only the interpretation of the word "tad-bhāva-
bhāvitvāt" is different; viz. "But the designation dependent on (i.e.
referring to) the movable and the immovable must be primary (with
regard to the Lord), because that fact (tad-bhāva) (viz. the fact that
all words really denote the Lord) is something that follows in future
(i.e. is not directly known at once, but is a matter which one comes to
know after studying Scripture)".³
SŪTRA 17
"THE SOUL (DOES) NOT (ORIGINATE), ON ACCOUNT OF NON-
MENTION IN SCRIPTURE, AND ON ACCOUNT OF ETERNITY (KNOWN)
THEREFROM (I.E. FROM SCRIPTURAL TEXTS)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The individual "soul" does not originate. Why? Because there
is no text about its having origin by nature; and because from
1 Śrī. B. 2.3.17, pp. 132-33, Part 2.
2 Śk. B. 2.3.17, pp. 138-39, Parts 7 and 8.
3 G.B. 2.3.15, pp. 181-82, Chap. 2.

[SŪ. 2. 3. 17.
ADH 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 409
the scriptural texts: ‘A wise man is neither born nor dies’ (Kaṭha
2.18 ¹), ‘Eternal among the eternal’ (Kaṭha. 5 13 ²), ‘An unborn
one, verily, lies by, enjoying’ (Śvet. 4 5 ³) and so on, the eternity of
the individual soul is known.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be argued In conformity with the texts: ‘One desirous of
heaven should perform sacrifices’ (Tait Saṁ. 2 5 5 ⁴), etc , which lay
down the means to attaining lordship in the next world, let the designa-
tion: ‘Devadatta is born and dead’ refer to the birth and death of
the body. But like the ether and the rest, birth and death must
pertain to the individual soul as well at the time of creation and
dissolution (respectively). Thus there is no conflict whatsoever with
any text.—
We reply: “Not, the soul, on account of non-mention in
Scripture”. The singular number ‘soul’ implies the class,⁵ in
accordance with the scriptural text teaching the plurality of souls,
viz. ‘Eternal among the eternal, conscious among the conscious’
(Kaṭha. 5.13, Śvet. 6.13), and in accordance with the aphorism, to be
mentioned hereafter, viz. “And on account of non-continuity, there
is no confusion” (Br. Sū. 2 3 48). The soul is not born, nor dies.
Why? ‘On account of non-mention in Scripture’, i.e. because there
are no scriptural texts designating the birth and death (of the soul)
at the time of creation and dissolution; and, because on the contrary,
“the eternity” of the soul is known “therefrom”, i e. from the
scriptural texts like: ‘“Imperishable, verily, O ! is this soul, possessing
the virtue of being indestructible”’ (Bṛh. 4.5.14), ‘A wise man is
neither born, nor dies’ (Kaṭha. 2.8), ‘Eternal among the eternal, the
conscious among the conscious, the one among the many, who bestows
objects of desires’ (Kaṭha. 5.13; Śvet. 6.13), ‘The two unborn ones,
the knower and the non-knower, the lord and the non-lord’ (Śvet
1.9), ‘One unborn one, verily, lies by, enjoying Another unborn one
leaves her who has been enjoyed’ (Śvet. 4.5) and so on; as well as
from the following Smṛti passages, viz. ‘“Nor at any time, verily, was

¹ Ś, R, Śk, B. ² R, Śk, B.
³ Not quoted by others. ⁴ P. 208, line 27, vol. 2.
⁵ And not that there is only one soul.

410 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 17.
ADH. 7.]
I not, nor you, nor these lords of men; nor, verily, shall we ever not
be hereafter' " (Gītā 2.12), ' "Unborn, eternal, constant and ancient,
he is not killed when the body is killed' " (Gītā 2 20), ' "Who knows
him to be imperishable, eternal, unborn and immutable, how can that
man kill one, O Pārtha, or cause one to be killed?"' (Gītā 2.21)
and so on.
If it be objected: There are scriptural texts designating the
origin of the world together with the sentient, such as, 'All come
forth from this soul', 'Born of whom, the progenitress of the universe
let loose the souls with water on the earth' (Mahānār. 1.4), 'The
lord of beings created beings' (Tait Br. 1.1.10, 1 ¹) ' "All these beings,
my dear, have Being as their root, Being as their abode, Boing as their
support"' (Chānd. 6.8.4), '"From whom, verily, these beings arise,
through whom they live when born, to whom they go and enter"'
(Tait. 3.1) and so on. Hence, the denial of birth and death of the
individual soul is not reasonable. For this very reason, the initial
proposition that through the knowledge of one there is the knowledge
of all, is established,—
(We reply:) "No", because the quoted texts teach that individual
soul has an origin, which (is not actual origin, but simply) consists in
the expansion of its knowledge, caused by its connection with the body,
subsequent to its giving up its real nature at the time of dissolution.
If this be so, then the individual soul too being an effect of Brahman,
the above initial proposition is established. And hence, it is established
that Brahman, who in His causal state possesses the non-divided names
and forms as His powers and is without an equal or a superior,—in
accordance with the text: '"The existent alone, my dear, was this in
the beginning, one only, without a second"' (Chānd. 6.2.1),—comes
Himself, as possessed of the manifest names and forms as His
powers at the time of the production of effects, to abide as three-
fold, viz. in the forms of the enjoyer (i.e. the cit), the object enjoyed
(i.e. the acit) and the controller (i e. Brahman). There is no con-
tradiction here by any text whatever.
Here ends the section entitled "The soul" (7).
1 P. 23, line 16, vol. 1.

[sū. 2. 3. 18.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 411
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva
They read "śruteḥ" instead of "aśruteh"¹. Interpretation same.
Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "The
knower". (Sūtra 18)
SŪTRA 18
"(THE SOUL IS) A KNOWER, FOR THAT VERY REASON."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The soul, which is an ego, is a knower.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, it has been pointed out that the soul does not originate
like the ether and the rest, since it is eternal, as established by Scripture.
Now, incidentally, its nature, etc. are being determined.
The word 'soul' is to be supplied from the preceding aphorism.
By the phrase "for this reason", the reason mentioned by the term
'therefrom' (in the preceding sūtra) is referred to. On the doubt, viz.
whether the soul is non-sentient by nature, but possessed of the
attribute of knowledge or mere consciousness, or knowledge by nature
yet possessed of (the attribute of) being a knower,—the Vaiśeṣikas ²
and the like hold that it is non-sentient, yet possessed of the attribute
of knowledge; while the Sāṁkhyas and the rest hold that the soul is
mere consciousness.
With regard to it we reply: "A knower", i.e. the individual soul
is nothing but a knower, i.e. nothing but knowledge by nature, yet
possessed of (the attribute of) being a knower. Why? On the
ground of the following scriptural texts, viz. 'Here this person
becomes self-illuminating' (Bṛh. 4.3.9, 14), 'The person who is
made of knowledge among the vital-breaths, who is the light in the
heart' (Bṛh. 4.3.7), 'There is no annihilation of the knowledge of
¹ Śrī. B. 2.3.18, p. 136, Part 2; Śk. B. 2.3.18, p. 140, Parts 7 and 8; G.B.
2.3.16.
² Vide V. Sū. 3.1.18, and Śaṁkara Miśra's commentary, p. 161.

412 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 2. 3. 18.
ADH. 8.]
the knower, because of his imperishability' (Bṛh. 4.3.30), ' “ Whereby
should one know, O ! the knower ? ' ” ' (Bṛh. 2.4.14; 4.5 15), 'This
person simply knows', 'For he is the one who sees, .1 hears,
smells, .2 thinks, conceives, does, the intelligent self ' (Praśna 4 9)
and so on.
The doctrine of the non-sentient soul, on the other hand, is to be
rejected,—because then the attribute of knowledge by itself, being
the effector of all practical transactions, will come to attain primacy,
and hence the non-sentient substratum of the attribute (viz. the
soul), being non-liable to salvation or bondage, virtue or vice, will
come to be non-primary or useless like the nipple on the neck of a
goat; 3 and finally, because of its opposition to Scripture.
The doctrine of mere consciousness, too, is to be rejected, because
if consciousness be all-pervading, then there will be no perception of
the pleasure and the like pertaining to the entire body; but if it be
atomic in size, then there will be no experience of the pleasure and the
like pertaining to hands, feet and so on.
Hence it is established that this soul, known through self-
consciousness, is knowledge by nature and a knower.
Here ends the section entitled “The knower” (8).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation different—viz. he interprets the word “jña” as
eternal consciousness and not as a knower.4
1 Touches.
2 Tastes.
3 An emblem of any useless or worthless object or person.
4 Ś.B. 2 2.18, p. 609.

[SU. 2. 3. 19.
ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 413
Adhikaraṇa 9: The section entitled "Depar-
ture". (Sūtras 19-31)
SŪTRA 19
"(THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS ATOMIC ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL
MENTION) OF DEPARTURE, GOING AND RETURNING."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The individual soul is atomic, because in the texts: 'By that
light this soul departs through the eye, or through the head, or through
other parts of the body' (Bṛh. 4.4 2¹), 'Whoever, verily, depart
from this world, all go to the moon alone' (Kauṣ. 1.2²), 'Having
come back from that world to this world for action' (Bṛh. 4 4 6³)
and so on, there is the mention "of departure, going and returning".
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, it has been proved that the individual soul is eternal and a
knower. Now its size is being determined.
On the doubt, viz. whether this soul is of a middle size,⁴ or of an
all-pervading size, or of an atomic size,—if it be suggested: It must
be of a middle size, since pleasure and the rest are experienced all
over the body. Or, it must be of an all-pervading size,—
We reply: The individual soul is capable "of departing, going
and returning". These three are not possible if it be all-pervading.
Moreover, if it be all-pervading, then experiences of pleasure and the
like will result everywhere. If, on the other hand, it be of a middle
size, then it must be non-eternal. Hence, the atomicity of the soul
is the only remaining alternative. In the passage: 'When he departs
from this body, he departs together with all these' (Kauṣ. 3.3⁵), its
departure is mentioned. In the passage: 'Whoever, verily, depart
from this world, all go to the moon alone' (Kauṣ. 1.2), its going
is mentioned. And, in the passage: 'Having come back from that
world to this world for action' (Bṛh. 4.4.6), its returning is mentioned.
¹ R, Śk, B.
² Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
³ Ś, R, Śk, B.
⁴ I.e. of the size of the body.
⁵ Note that Nimbārka quotes a different text here.

414 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 20-21.
ADH. 9.]
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
He takes sūtras 19–27 as laying down the prima facie view.
Literal interpretation same.
SŪTRA 20
“AND (THERE IS POSSIBILITY) OF THE SUBSEQUENT TWO (VIZ.
GOING AND RETURNING) THROUGH ONE’S SELF.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Sometimes departing may be possible on the part of even one
who is not moving, as in the case of the cessation of the rulership of a
village ¹ But, since there is possibility “of the subsequent two
through one’s self” alone, the individual soul is atomic.
Vedānta-kaustubha
As in the case of the cessation of the rulership of a village,
departing, which consists in the cessation of the rulership of the body,
may sometimes be possible on the part of the soul even when it is
not moving. But, since there can be the accomplishment “of the
subsequent two”, viz. going and returning”, “through one’s self”
alone, it is established that the individual soul is atomic.
SŪTRA 21
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (THE SOUL IS) NOT ATOMIC, BECAUSE
OF THE SCRIPTURAL MENTION OF WHAT IS NOT THAT, (WE REPLY :)
NO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE TOPIC BEING SOMETHING ELSE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected : In accordance with the text, referring to the
individual soul and designating “what is not that”, viz. : ‘He, verily,
is the great’ (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ²), the individual soul is “not atomic”,—
¹ I.e. when somebody ceases to be the ruler of a village, he may be said to
‘go out’.
² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

[sū. 2. 3. 22.
adh. 9.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 415
(we reply:) “no”, because in the middle, the topic is the Supreme
Soul.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected: The individual soul is “not atomic”. Why?
“Because of the scriptural mention of what is not that,”—“that”
means atomicity, “what is not that” means non-atomicity, on account
of the scriptural mention of that,¹—i.e. because in connection with the
discourse on the individual soul, viz. ‘He who is made of knowledge
among the vital-breaths, who is the light within the soul’ (Bṛh. 4.3.7),
there is the mention of greatness in the scriptural text: ‘He, verily, is
the great, unborn soul’ (Bṛh. 4.4 25),—
(We reply:) “No”. Why? “On account of the topic being
something else,” i.e. because the topic is here something other than
the individual soul referred to in the beginning, i e the Supreme Soul,
who is the topic to be established in the middle of the section, in the
text: ‘By whom the soul has been found and realized’ (Bṛh. 4 4.13)
SŪTRA 22
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE WORD ITSELF AND OF MEASURE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“On account of the word itself (viz. ‘atomic’) and of measure,”
mentioned (respectively) in the texts: ‘This atomic soul’ (Muṇḍ.
3 1.9²), ‘An individual soul is a part of the hundredth part of the
tip of a hair, divided a hundredfold’ (Śvet. 5.9³), the individual soul
is atomic.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The phrase: “the word itself” means the word which is denotative
of its own atomicity. The word “measure” means the measure which
is separated from⁴ all gross measures, i.e. an intensely minute measure.
On account of these two, the individual soul is atomic. The word
itself is mentioned in the text: ‘This atomic soul in which the five-fold
vital-breath has entered is to be known by means of thought’ (Muṇḍ.
¹ This explains the compound “atacchruteḥ”.
² Ś, R, B, Śk, B. ³ Ś, R, Bh, B.
⁴ Uddhṛtya mānam = Unmānam.

416 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 23-24.
ADH. 9.]
3.1.9). The measure is mentioned in the text: ‘An individual soul
is a part of the hundredth part of the tip of a hair, divided a hundred-
fold’ (Śvet. 5.9) ‘For the lower one is seen to be like the point of
the spoke of a wheel only’ (Śvet. 5.8).
SŪTRA 23
“NON-CONTRADICTION, AS IN THE CASE OF THE SANDAL-PASTE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Just as a drop of sandal-paste, though occupying one spot of the
body, refreshes the entire body, so exactly does the soul illuminate.
Hence, the experience of pleasure and the like over the whole body
is not inconsistent.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected: If the soul be atomic in size, then how can
pleasure and the like be experienced over the whole body?—we reply:
There is no such contradiction. Just as one drop of yellow sandal-
paste, occupying one spot of the body, produces, through its own
quality, a pleasurable sensation extending over the entire body, so
the soul too, occupying one spot of the body, experiences, through its
own quality, the pleasure and the like extending over the entire body,
in accordance with the Smṛti passage: ‘This soul, though only atomic,
abides pervading its own body, as does a drop of yellow sandal-paste,
pervading the body’. For this very reason it has been said by the
Lord too: ‘“Just as one sun illuminates this entire world, so the
field-owner (i.e. the soul) illuminates the entire field (i.e. the body),
O Bhārata!”’ (Gītā 13.33).
SŪTRA 24
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (THE TWO CASES ARE NOT PARALLEL)
ON ACCOUNT OF THE SPECIALITY OF ABODE, (WE REPLY:) NO, ON
ACCOUNT OF THE ADMISSION (OF AN ABODE, VIZ.) IN THE HEART
CERTAINLY.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected: The example of the sandal-paste is not
appropriate, “on account of the speciality of abode”,—it is directly

[sū. 2. 3 25.
ADH. 9 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 417
observed that the drop of sandal-paste occupies one spot of the body;
but it is not known that the individual soul occupies one part of the
body, since consciousness is experienced everywhere,—on account of
such a difference of abode between the two,—
(We reply :) “No”. Why ? “On account of the admission,” viz.
that the soul, atomic in size, abides in one part of the body, i.e. “in
the heart”, by the scriptural text: ‘He who is made of knowledge
among the vital-breaths, who is the light within the heart’ (Bṛh.
4.4.22). The meaning of the term “certainly” is that it is the
attribute of knowledge (and not the atomic soul itself) which abides
in the whole body.
SŪTRA 25
“OR THROUGH ATTRIBUTE, LIKE LIGHT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The illumination of the body takes place only through the attribute
of the soul, like the light of a lamp and the like in a room.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. the doctrine that there is a relation of
attribute and substratum (between knowledge and the soul) is not
proper, since our purpose is served by the very nature only (of the
soul),—(the author) replies :
The term “or” is for disposing of the objection. The sense is
that the experience of the pleasure and the like, pertaining to the
entire body, by the atomic soul, occupying one part of the body, is
possible through its attribute of knowledge which is all-pervading
“As in ordinary life.” In ordinary life, a gem, the sun, a light and
so on, though occupying one place, illuminate many places, as the
case may be, through their attribute alone. Or else, (the combination)
may be disjoined as: “as in the case of light”, i.e. like the light of
gems and the rest. The doctrine of an attributeless soul, as admitted
by the Sāṁkhyas, has been disposed of above.¹
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara reads “lokavat”, all others “ālokavat”.
¹ Vide V.K. 1.3.18.
27

418 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 3. 26-27.
ADH. 9.]
SŪTRA 26
"THE EXTENDING BEYOND (OF KNOWLEDGE) IS AS IN THE CASE
OF SMELL, FOR THIS (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
But the "extending beyond" of the attribute of knowledge fits
in "as in the case of smell". The scriptural text: 'He has entered
here up to the body-hairs and finger nails' (Kauṣ. 4.20 1) "shows"
the individual soul to be the substratum of such an attribute.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"The extending" of the attribute of knowledge beyond the soul,
its substratum which is situated within the heart, i.e. its occupying
a larger space, is "as in the case of smell", i.e. is just like smell
occupying a larger space than the flower which occupies a smaller
space. The scriptural text: 'He has entered here up to the body-
hairs and finger-nails' (Kauṣ. 4.2.0) "shows" the soul's pervasion
over the entire body by means of its attribute of knowledge, extending
over a larger space.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
They break this sūtra into two different ones, viz. "Vyatireko
gandhavat" and "Tathā ca darśayati".²
Rāmānuja
He too reads "ca" in place of "hi", but does not break it into
two sūtras.
——————
SŪTRA 27
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE SEPARATE TEACHING."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Although there is no distinction between the soul and its knowledge
in respect of being knowledge, yet a relation of substratum and
1 Not quoted by others. For correct quotation vide Kauṣ., p. 141.
2 Ś.B., pp. 615-16, Bh. B., p. 136.