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

SECOND CHAPTER (Adhyāya)
FOURTH QUARTER (Pāda)
Adhikarana 1: The section entitled “The origin
of the sense-organs”. (Sūtras 1–4)
SŪTRA 1
“LIKEWISE THE SENSE-ORGANS.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The origin of the organs is being considered. The sense-organs
originate like the ether and the rest.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the preceding quarter, the absence of any contradiction among
the scriptural texts regarding the ether and the rest has been shown.
Now, the author is showing the non-contradictory nature of the
scriptural texts regarding the organs of the individual soul.
On the doubt, viz. whether the sense-organs originate or not,
the prima facie view is as follows: In the discussions about origin,
e.g. in the scriptural text: ‘From this soul the ether has originated’
(Tait. 2.1), there is no mention of the origin of the sense-organs;
and in the scriptural text: ‘“The non-existent, verily, was this in the
beginning”. Then they said: “What was that non-existent”? “The
sages, verily, were the non-existent in the beginning.” Then they
said: “Who were those sages”. “The sense-organs, verily, were the
sages”’ (Śat. Br. 6.1.1, 1¹), the sense-organs are declared to exist
prior to creation; hence they do not originate.
With regard to it, we reply: Just as the elements like the ether
and the rest, mentioned in the passage: ‘From him arise the vital-
breath, the mind and all the sense-organs, the ether, the air, fire’
(Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), originate, “so the sense-organs”, too, originate.

¹ P. 499, lines 1-2.

[SŪ 2. 4. 2.
ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 451
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different, viz. he takes it to be setting down the
prima facie view thus: ‘(Just as the individual soul is eternal) so are
the sense-organs ¹ (as declared by Scripture ²)’.
SŪTRA 2
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SECONDARY (ORIGIN)"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
It cannot be said also that in the section concerned with creation,
e.g. in the passage: "From the self the ether has originated" (Tait
2 1), there being no mention of the origin of the organs, the text
regarding the origin of the organs is secondary,—"on account of the
impossibility of a secondary" (origin). That is, the sense-organs
must have origin, as the majority of scriptural texts designate such an
origin, and as, otherwise, the initial proposition that there is the
knowledge of all through the knowledge of one will come to be con-
tradicted
Vedānta-kaustubha
Having rejected the doubt,—viz. by reason of its opposition
to the scriptural text: ‘“The non-existent, verily, was this in the
beginning”’ (Tait. 2.7), the scriptural text about the origin of the
sense-organs is secondary,—the author states the reason for the view
that the sense-organs, too, originate.
The compound "gauṇyāsambhava" is to be explained as ‘impos-
sibility of a secondary (origin)’, i.e. the scriptural text about the
origin of the sense-organs cannot be secondary. Hence the sense-
organs do originate. If it be asked: Why impossible?—(we reply:)
Because the scriptural text about origin can be understood literally,
because there are numerous scriptural texts regarding such an origin,
and because otherwise the initial proposition will come to be con-
tradicted, i.e. because there are numerous scriptural texts designat-
ing origination, such as: ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the
¹ Śk. B. 2.4.1, p. 168
² I.e. Śat. Br. 6.1.1, 1—quoted by Śrīnivāsa.

452 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 2.
ADH. 1.]
mind and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), 'Just as small sparks
come forth from fire, so exactly do all the sense-organs from this soul'
(Bṛh. 2.1.20), 'Seven sense-organs arise' (Muṇḍ 2.1.7). Having
made the initial assertion, viz that there is the knowledge of one
through the knowledge of all thus: '"What being known, sir, all this
comes to be known?"' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), the text goes on to declare,
in order to prove it, that 'From him arise the vital-breath, the mind
and all the sense-organs' (Mund 2 1 3) and so on. This initial
proposition is proved only if all the effects, like the sense-organs and
the rest, are admitted to have Him as their material cause. The
scriptural text: 'The non-existent alone was this in the beginning'
(Śat. Br. 6.1.1, 1), on the other hand, is to be explained as referring
to the cause. Hence there is no contradiction.
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja
He takes this and the next sūtra as one sūtra Interpretation
different, viz. "(The plural number in the text ¹) is secondary, be-
cause of impossibility", i.e. because prior to creation Brahman alone
exists.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
He regards this sūtra as answering the prima facie objection.
He too like Rāmānuja takes this and the next sūtra as forming a
single sūtra, and interprets it just like Rāmānuja
Baladeva
Interpretation just like Rāmānuja's.
¹ Viz. Śat. Br. 6.1.1, 1. See Śrīnivāsa above. It has been stated under
the previous sūtra that the words 'sense-organs' and 'sages' in that passage denote
Brahman. But how then to account for the plural number?—to this question
the present sūtra replies.
² Śrī. B. 2.4.2, p. 170, Part 2.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 3-4.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 453
SŪTRA 3
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIRECT MENTION (IN) THAT OF WHAT
IS PRIOR."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the direct mention," in that text, of the verb,—
used in its primary sense in connection with the ether and the rest,—
in reference to the sense-organs as well, the origin of the sense-organs
is primary.
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason, too, the origin of the sense-organs is primary,—
so says the author.
"On account of the direct mention," in "that", i.e in the text:
'From him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all the sense-organs,
the ether, the air' (Muṇḍ. 2 1 3), of the word 'arises',—used in its
primary sense with reference to the ether and so on,—with reference
to the sense-organs, mentioned even prior to the ether and the rest,—
the scriptural text designating the origin of the sense-organs is, indeed,
primary. It is not possible that one and the same word 'arises' is
used in a secondary sense with reference to the sense-organs, and in a
primary sense with reference to the ether and the rest. For this
reason too, it is used in a primary sense alone in both the cases.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Interpretation exactly like Rāmānuja's second half of the preced-
ing sūtra.¹
SŪTRA 4
"ON ACCOUNT OF SPEECH BEING PRECEDED BY THAT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The sense-organs originate like the ether and the rest because
of the mention of speech, the vital-breath and the mind as preceded
by light, water and food in the passage: " 'The mind, my dear, is
¹ G.B. 2.4.3, p. 234. Chap. 2.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 4.
454 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.]
composed of food, the vital-breath is composed of water, speech is
composed of light’” (Chānd. 6.5.4 ¹)
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the allegation, viz. that in the section treating of creation,
the origin of the sense-organs is not mentioned,—the author replies
here:
On account of the mention in the Chāndogya of speech, the vital-
breath and the mind as preceded by light, water and food respectively,
having Brahman for their material cause, thus · ‘“The mind, my
dear, is composed of food, the vital-breath is composed of water,
speech is composed of light”’ (Chānd 6.5 4), there is origin (of the
sense-organs). Hence it is established that the sense-organs do
originate on the ground of the following reasons, viz. there is the
mention of the origin (of the sense-organs) in the section treating of
origin too, there are also numerous texts designating the origin of
the sense-organs, and, finally, the initial assertion too that there is the
knowledge of all through the knowledge of one is established only
on this view.
Here ends the section entitled “The origin of the sense-organs” (2).
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja
This is sūtra 3 in his commentary. Interpretation different
He continues the same topic, viz. that the word ‘prāṇa’ in the above
passage does not stand for the sense-organs, but for Brahman. Hence
the sūtra: “Because of speech (i.e. names of objects) being preceded
by that (viz. the existence of those objects)”. That is, names of
objects pre-suppose the existence of objects. But prior to creation
there were no objects, and hence no speech or organs of speech and
so on.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 3 in his commentary too. Interpretation similar
to Rāmānuja’s, viz. “Because of speech (i e. names and forms) being
preceded by that (i.e by the creation by the Lord).³
¹ Ś, B. ² Śrī. B. 2.4.3, pp 170-71, Chap. 2.
³ Śk. B. 2.4.3, p. 167, Parts 7 and 8.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 5.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 455
Baladeva
He also continues the same topic thus. "Because of speech (i.e.
Brahman) being prior to that (viz. pradhāna and rest) ".¹
Adhikaraṇa 2: The section entitled "The going
of the seven". (Sūtras 5-6)
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 5)
SŪTRA 5
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE GOING OF THE SEVEN, AND ON ACCOUNT
OF BEING SPECIFIED"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
On the doubt, viz. whether they are seven or eleven, the prima
facie view is as follows: Because of the going (of the sense-organs),
mentioned in the passage: 'The vital-breath going out all the
sense-organs go out' (Bṛh. 4.4.2 ²), and because of their being specified
as seven only in that very passage: 'He does not see,—does not
smell,—does not taste,—does not speak,—does not hear,—does not
think,—does not touch' (Bṛh. 4.4.2 ³), the sense-organs are seven
only.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, desirous of determining the number of the sense-organs,
the author is stating the prima facie view with a view to removing
the contradictions among the texts about it.
On the doubt, viz whether these sense-organs are seven or eleven,
(the prima facie objector replies:) "Because of the going of seven",
mentioned in the passage: 'The vital-breath going out, all the sense-
organs go out' (Bṛh. 4.4.2), they are seven only. How is it known
that seven alone go out? "Because of (their) being specified,"
i.e. because in the passage: "When the person in the sun moves
about back, then he becomes non-knowing of forms, he becomes one,
¹ G.B. 2.4.4, p. 235, Chap. 2.
² B.
³ Not quoted by others. The phrase: "iti āhuḥ ekī-bhavati" is to be
supplied in each dotted portion.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 6.
456 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 2 ]
he does not see, does not smell, does not taste, does not speak, does
not hear, does not think, does not touch' (Bṛh 4.4.1-2), only seven,
like the eye, etc., are specified.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
According to him "gateḥ" = avagateḥ, i.e. because of under-
standing.¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 6)
SŪTRA 6
"BUT (THERE ARE) HANDS AND THE REST, (THESE ADDITIONAL
SENSE-ORGANS) BEING ESTABLISHED, THEREFORE (THAT) IS NOT
SO."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The correct conclusion is as follows It being definitely ascertained
from the passage: 'The hand, verily, is an organ of sense' (Bṛh.
3.2.8 ²) and so on, that there are more than seven, it is not to be thought
there are only seven sense-organs. In accordance with the scriptural
passage. 'There are ten sense-organs in a person, the soul is the
eleventh' (Bṛh. 3.9.4 ³), there are eleven sense-organs.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author states the right conclusion.
The term "but" intimates the blindness of the prima facie
opponent. In the scriptural text: 'The hand, verily, is an organ of
sense. It is seized by action as an over-sense-organ, for by the hands
one performs action' (Bṛh. 3.2.8), "the hands and the rest", over
and above the seven, are mentioned. "Therefore" the hands and the
rest, over and above the seven, "being established", and in the pas-
sage: 'All the sense-organs go out' (Bṛh. 4.4.2) the going out of all
the sense-organs being not specified, it cannot be thought that there
are only seven of them. But the fact is that there are eleven sense-
organs in accordance with the scriptural and Smṛti texts: 'There
1 Ś.B. 2.4.5, p. 653.
2 Ś, Bh, B. 3 Op. cit.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 7.
ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 457
are ten sense-organs in a person, the soul is the eleventh’ (Bṛh. 3.2.8),
‘The sense-organs are ten and one’ (Gītā 15 5). Among these,
five are organs of knowledge, viz ear, skin, eye, tongue and nose.
They have five objects, viz sound and the rest. Five are organs of
action, viz. speech, hands, feet, organ of elimination and organ of
generation. They have five objects like word and the rest. The
internal organ is the mind, the cause of resolution and the rest In
this way it is established that there are altogether eleven sense-organs
Here ends the section entitled “The going of the seven” (2).
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva
This is sūtra 5 in the commentaries of the first two, but sūtra 6
in the commentary of the last. Interpretation of the word “sthite”
different, viz. “because of abiding (in the body and assisting the soul).¹
Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled “The atom-
icity of the sense-organs”. (Sūtra 7)
SŪTRA 7
“AND ATOMIC.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In accordance with the scriptural text regarding going out, viz.:
‘All the sense-organs go out’ (Bṛh. 4 4.2²), the sense-organs are
“atomic”.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the author is showing the size of the sense-organs.
On the doubt, viz. whether the sense-organs are atomic or all-
pervading, the Sāṁkhyas maintain that they are all-pervasive, being
effects of the unlimited ahaṁkāra. In accordance with the scriptural
¹ Śrī. B. 2 4.5, p. 173, Part 2; Śk. B. 2.4.5, p. 169, Parts 7 and 8; G.B.
2.4.6.
² R, Śk, B.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 8.
458 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.]
text also: ‘These are equal and infinite’ (Bṛh. 1.5.13), they are
certainly all-pervading, this is the prima facie view.
The correct conclusion is that in conformity with the scriptural
text about their going out, viz.: ‘The vital-breath going out, all the
sense-organs go out’ (Bṛh. 4.4.2), they are atomic. There is no
fixed rule that unlimited effects arise from what is unlimited, it being
found that a small flower arises from a huge tree and so on. The
above-quoted scriptural text, on the other hand, simply lays down
that the sense-organs are innumerable, or serves the purpose of medi-
tation, mentioned in the scriptural text: ‘Now who, verily, meditates
on these, the infinite’ (Bṛh. 1.5.13). Hence it is established that
the sense-organs are atomic.
Here ends the section entitled “The atomicity of the
sense-organs” (3).
Adhikarana 4. The section entitled “The origin
of the chief vital-breath”. (Sūtra 8)
SŪTRA 8
“AND THE BEST.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“The best,” i.e. the chief vital-breath, mentioned in the scrip-
tural text: ‘The vital-breath, verily, is the oldest and the best’
(Chānd. 5.1.1 ¹), originates like the great elements. Why? In
conformity with the same scriptural text, viz. ‘From him arise the
vital-breath’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, incidentally, the origin of the chief vital-breath is being
considered.
On the doubt, viz. whether the chief vital-breath, the cause of
the subsistence of body and mentioned in the scriptural text, viz.:
‘The vital-breath, verily, is the oldest and the best’ (Chānd. 5.1.1),
originates like the great elements,—if it be suggested: It does not
originate. Why? Because in the text: ‘There was neither death,
nor the immortal, nor then a sign of night or day. That one breathed
1 Ś

[sū. 2. 4. 9.
ADH 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 459
without wind by its self-power. There was, verily, nothing whatso-
ever other than it, or higher’ (Ṛg. V. 10.129.2¹), by the words ‘was
breathing’, meaning ‘He existed breathing’, the motion of the vital-
breath at the time of the universal dissolution is designated.
We reply: “The chief too”, i.e. the chief vital-breath, too,
originates like the elements and the rest, since in the scriptural text:
‘From him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all the sense-organs,
the ether, the air’ (Muṇḍ. 2 1.3), like the origin of the great elements
and the rest, the origin of the chief vital-breath, too, is mentioned;
and since it is known that prior to creation there was unity alone
and no diversity.
The meaning of the text: ‘There was neither death’ (Ṛg. V.
10.129.2), on the other hand, is as follows: ‘Then’, i.e at the time
of the universal dissolution, ‘there was no death’, the killer. There
was ‘no immortal with self-power’, i e there was no food of the
gods (amṛta) together with the food of fathers (svadhā). There was
neither the moon, the sign of the night, nor the sun, the sign of the
day. ‘That one,’ i.e. Brahman alone, the seed of the universe,
‘breathed’, i.e. existed Of what nature was He? ‘Breathless,’
i.e. without effects like the air and the rest, viz in His causal state.
There was nothing other than Him, i e. Brahman.
Hence it is established that like the ether and the rest, the chief
vital-breath too originates from Brahman.
Here ends the section entitled “The origin of the chief vital-
breath” (4).
Adhikaraṇa 5: The section entitled “The air
and function”. (Sūtras 9—12)
SŪTRA 9
“(THE VITAL-BREATH IS) NOT AIR AND FUNCTION, ON ACCOUNT
OF THE SEPARATE TEACHING.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The vital-breath is “not” mere “air”, nor a sense-organ, nor a
“function” (of the sense-organs). But we hold that the vital-breath
¹ P. 387, lines 21–23.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 9.
460 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
is nothing but air that has assumed a different condition, “on account
of the separate teaching”, viz ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the
mind and all the sense-organs, the ether, the air’ (Muṇḍ. 2 1.3).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the author is stating the nature of the chief vital-breath.
On the doubt, viz. whether the vital-breath, the oldest, is the air,
one of the great elements, or the general function of the sense-organs,
or nothing but the great element air that has assumed a different
condition, if it be suggested In accordance with the statement, viz.:
“What is the vital-breath that is the air. This air is five-fold, prāṇa,
apāna, vyāna, udāna, samāna”,¹ it is nothing but the air. Or else,
the vital-breath is the common function of the sense-organs as held
by the Sāṁkhyas ² and is of five kinds,—
We reply: The vital-breath is “not the air” simply, nor a general
mode consisting in the function of the sense-organs. Why? “On
account of the separate teaching,” i.e. because in the text: ‘From
him arise the vital breath, the mind and all the sense-organs, the ether,
the air’ (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), the vital-breath is taught as something
different from the second great element air and from the sense-organs.
If the vital-breath be mere air, then this separate designation would
be set aside. And, if it be a mere mode of the sense-organs, then, too,
its separate designation from the possessors of the mode (viz. the
sense-organs) would be futile, as what arises separately being itself
an object, cannot be the function of other objects like the sense-
organs. The vital-breath, thus, is nothing but the great element air
that has assumed a different condition, this being the only alternative
left. Hereby, any conflict with the text ‘What is the vital-breath
that is the air’, too, is avoided.
¹ For the nature and function of these five modes, see V.R.M.
² Vide Sām. Sū. 2.31.

[sū. 2. 4. 10-11.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 461
SŪTRA 10
“BUT LIKE THE EYES AND THE REST, (THE VITAL-BREATH IS AN
INSTRUMENT OF THE SOUL), BECAUSE OF BEING AN OBJECT TO BE
TAUGHT TOGETHER WITH THEM AND SO ON.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Though the best, the vital-breath is but a special instrument of
the individual soul, “like the eyes and the rest”. Why? “On
account of being an object to be taught and so on,” i.e. on account
of the teaching of the vital-breath together with the eyes and the
rest in the dialogue among the sense-organs and so on.
The author shows that the vital-breath, being under the control
of the individual soul, is serviceable to the soul like the eyes and the
rest
Vedānta-kaustubha
The meaning of the term “but” is that in spite of its superiority
to the sense-organs, no independence is possible on the part of the
vital-breath, as is possible on the part of the individual soul. The
vital-breath is “like the eyes and the rest”. That is, just as the eyes
and the rest are instruments of the individual soul, so the vital-breath
is a special instrument of the individual soul. To the question:
Whence is it known that it is an instrument of the soul?—We reply:
“Because of being an object to be taught together with them”, i.e.
because of the teaching of the vital-breath together with them, i.e.
together with the eyes and the rest, in the dialogue among the sense-
organs. By the phrase: “and so on”, reasons like non-sentience,
incapability of self-dependence and the rest are implied.
SŪTRA 11
“AND (THERE IS) NO FAULT ON THE GROUND OF (ITS) NOT BEING
A SENSE-ORGAN, FOR THUS (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected: If the vital-breath be an instrument of the
individual soul, then there being no activity suitable to it, there must
be fault “on the ground of (its) not being a sense-organ”,—

[SŪ. 2. 4 11.
462 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
(We reply:) “no”, since the scriptural text: ‘ “I alone, dividing
myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3 ¹), “shows”
that the holding up of the body is the peculiar function of the vital-
breath.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected. Just as one can be a perceiver only if there be
some object to be perceived, so a thing may be an instrument only
if there be some function to be accomplished by it; and this is not
found. Hence the vital-breath cannot be a sense-organ Thus,
as the vital-breath is not a sense-organ, so if it be an instrument of the
individual soul, it is but a futile one,—
We reply: “No”. There is no such fault. “For,” i.e. since,
in order that the vital-breath may be serviceable as an instrument
of the individual soul, the holy Scripture “shows”, under the dialogue
among the sense-organs, that a purpose is served by the vital-breath
as well—one that cannot be served by the sense-organs,—viz. the
holding up of the body and the sense-organs: ‘The chief vital-breath
said to them: “Do not fall in delusion. It is I alone who, dividing
myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
According to them the word “akaraṇatvāt” answers the prima
facie, viz. that if the vital-breath be an organ of the soul, then there
must be a sense-object for it, like colour for the eyes and so on. The
answer is that there need be no sense-object, since the vital-breath
is not an organ like the eyes and the rest. Still it is not devoid of
a function, the holding of the body being its special function.²
Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva
According to them, the word “akaraṇatvāt” means: “On account
of not having a function”. That is, no objection can be raised on
¹ Ś.
² Ś.B. 2.4.11, pp 662-63; Bh. B. 2.4.11, p. 148.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 12.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 463
the ground that the vital-breath has no special activity, for it does
have a special function ¹
SŪTRA 12
“(THE VITAL-BREATH) HAVING FIVE MODES IS DESIGNATED LIKE
THE MIND.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Just as the mind having many modes serves the individual soul
through its own modes like desire and the rest, so the vital-breath,
too, “having five modes, is designated” as serving the soul through
its modes like apāna and the rest.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author points out that the same vital-breath is designated
as manifold through the difference of modes, but these latter are not
separate entities The vital-breath does not serve the soul by only
holding up the body, but by other functions too.
Just as in conformity with the text: ‘Desire, resolution, doubt,
faith,—², firmness, lack of firmness, bashfulness, meditation, fear,—
all these are the mind alone’ (Bṛh. 1.5.3), the mind alone, possessed
of desire and the rest as its modes, serves the individual soul through
its own modes, but desire, resolution and the rest are not special
kinds of entities, so by the text: ‘The prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna,
samāna—all these are the vital-breath’ (Bṛh 1.5.3), the vital-breath
alone “is designated as having five modes”. The apāna and the rest
are the modes of the vital-breath itself, but not separate entities, and
it serves the soul through its own modes,—this is the sense. This
being so, it is established that the vital-breath is the air itself that has
assumed a different condition, an instrument of the individual soul,
possessed of many modes and is the best.
Here ends the section entitled “The air and function” (5).
¹ Śrī. B. 2.4.10, p. 177, Part 2, Madras ed.; Śk. B. 2.4.10, p. 174, Parts 7
and 8; G.B. 2.4.11.
² “Lack of faith.”

464 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 13-14.
ADH. 6-7.]
Adhikaraṇa 6. The section entitled "The atom-
icity of the best". (Sūtra 13)
SŪTRA 13
"AND ATOMIC"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In accordance with the scriptural text designating departure,
the vital-breath, too, is "atomic".
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the size of the chief vital-breath is being considered.
On the doubt, viz. whether the chief vital-breath is great in size
or atomic,—if the suggestion be: In accordance with the scriptural
texts: 'Everything is installed in the vital-breath' (Praśna 2.6),
"For all this is covered by the vital-breath", it is great in size,—
We reply: The vital-breath, the best, too, should be known to
be "atomic", in accordance with the scriptural text: "He going out,
the vital-breath goes out after him" (Bṛh. 4.4.2). The above scrip-
tural texts, on the other hand, refer to the vital-breath in its collective
aspect. Hence, it is established that the best (viz. the chief vital-
breath) is atomic.
Here ends the section entitled "The atomicity of the best" (6).
Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled "The super-
intending of fire and the rest". (Sūtras 14-18)
SŪTRA 14
"BUT THE SUPERINTENDING OF FIRE AND THE REST, ON ACCOUNT
OF THE DECLARATION OF THAT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The sense-organs proceed to their respective functions as initiated
by the divinities like fire and the rest, in accordance with the scrip-
tural text: 'Fire becoming speech entered into the mouth' (Ait.
1.2.4 ¹).
1 Ś, B.

[sū. 2. 4. 14. VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 465
ADH. 7.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, the activity of the sense-organs is being discussed.
On the doubt, viz. whether the sense-organs like the eye and the
rest proceed to their respective objects through their own power alone,
or as initiated by their respective presiding divinities,—the suggestion
being: Through their own power, in accordance with the scriptural
text: ‘For by the eyes one sees colours’ (Bṛh. 3.9.20),—
We reply: “Fire and so on”. The term “but” is meant for
disposing of the prima facie view. Speech and the rest function only
as superintended by fire and so on, i.e by the divinities like fire
and so on. The word “superintending” means that which is super-
intended or initiated, 1.e. an object to be initiated. Just as chariots
and the rest move as superintended by charioteers and others, so is
the case here. Why? “On account of the declaration of that”,
i.e. “on account of the declaration”, or mention, in the sacred text,
“of that” or of the fact of their being superintended by fire and the
rest,¹ thus: ‘Fire becoming speech entered into the mouth, the air
becoming the vital-breath entered into the nose, the sun becoming
sight entered into the eyes’ (Ait. 1.2.4). If there be no relation of the
initiated and the initiator, the entering of the fire and the rest must
become meaningless. The scriptural text: ‘For by the eyes’ (Bṛh.
3.9.20) and so on should be known to have served its purpose by
proving simply that the eyes and the rest are sense-organs.
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
They read this and the next sūtra as one sūtra, interpreting it
differently thus: “But the rule of the fire and the rest with the bearer
of the vital-breath (i.e. the individual soul) (over the sense-organs is)
on account of the thinking of that (viz. the Lord), in accordance with
scriptural text.” That is, we learn from Scripture that the fire-god
and the rest, as well as the individual soul rule over the sense-organs,
but their rule depends on the will of the Lord.²

¹ This explains the compound “tad-āmananāt”.
² Śrī. B. 2.4.14, pp. 181-82, Part 1, Madras ed.; Śk. B. 2.4.14, p. 178,
Parts 7 and 8.
30

[SŪ. 2. 4. 15.
466 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.]
Baladeva
Interpretation different, viz. “But the light (jyotiḥ) is the prime
ruler (ādyadhiṣṭhāna), on account of the declaration of that.” That
is, the Lord is the primary initiator of the sense-organs, while the
fire-god and the rest, and the individual soul are secondary initiators.¹
SŪTRA 15
“WITH THE POSSESSOR OF THE VITAL-BREATH, ON ACCOUNT OF
SCRIPTURAL TEXT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is a servant-master relation between the sense-organs and
the individual soul alone. The soul is the enjoyer, “on account of
the scriptural text”: ‘Now where the eye has entered into the ether,
that is the seeing person: the eye is for seeing’ (Chānd. 8.12.4²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
If this be so, then enjoyment, too, may pertain to the gods,—to
this the author replies:
The possessor of the vital-breath is one who has the vital-breath,
the cause of the holding up of the body and the sense-organs. The
sense-organs have a servant-master relation “with the possessor of
the vital-breath”, i.e. with the individual soul. This being so, the
possessor of the vital-breath alone is the enjoyer of objects through
the sense-organs,—this is the sense. Why? “On account of scriptural
text”, i.e. on account of the scriptural text: ‘Now, where the eye
has entered into the ether, that is the seeing person; the eye is for
seeing’ (Chānd. 8.12.4).
¹ G.B. 2.4.14, p. 249, Chap. 2.
² Ś, B.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 16.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 467
SŪTRA 16
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE ETERNITY OF THAT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the eternity" of the above relationship with the
individual soul alone, but not with the presiding deities.
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason, too, the enjoyer of the fruits, accomplishable
by the sense-organs, is their master, the possessor of the vital-breath
alone, but their presiding deities are not such enjoyers, "on account of
the eternity of that", i.e. because there is an eternal relation between
the sense-organs and the possessor of the vital-breath alone, as proved
by the scriptural text: 'He going out the vital-breath goes out after
him. The vital-breath going out all the sense-organs go out after
it' (Bṛh. 4 4.2). The gods, on the other hand, abide in highest
lordship, and not in what is wretched (viz. the body), in accordance
with the scriptural text; 'Evil, verily, does not approach the gods'
(Brh. 1 5 20¹).
COMPARISON
All others add a "ca" in the middle thus: "Tasya ca nityatvāt".
Śaṃkara
The interpretation of the word "tasya" different, viz.: "Because
of the eternity of that (viz. of the individual soul)". That is, the
individual soul alone abides permanently in the body as the enjoyer,
but the deities cannot do so.²
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 14 in their commentaries. Interpretation different:
On account of the eternity of that (viz. of the attribute of being
ruled by the Lord). That is, all objects are eternally ruled by the
Lord alone. Hence it follows that the rule of the sense-organs by the
deities and the individual soul really depends upon the will of the
Lord.³
¹ Reading: "pāpam" and not "anagham". Vide Bṛh. 1.5.20, p. 70.
² Ś.B. 2.4.16, pp. 667-68.
³ Śrī. B. 2.4.14, p. 182, Part 2; Śk. B. 2.4.14, pp. 178-79, Parts 7 and 8.

468 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 17.
ADH. 7.]
Baladeva
Interpretation different, viz And on account of the eternity
of that, (i.e. of the relationship between the Lord and the gods)
That is, there being an eternal relation between the gods and the
Lord, the real ruler, the gods rule the sense-organs and so on, through
the mere will of the Lord ¹
——————————————————
SŪTRA 17
"THEY (ARE) SENSE-ORGANS, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION
OF THOSE AS OTHER THAN THE BEST."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the designation of those," i.e. of sense-organs,
as different from the chief in the passage: 'From him arise the vital-
breath, the mind and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3 ²), "they",
i.e. the sense-organs, are different entities called 'sense-organs', but
not particular modes of the chief.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Apprehending the objection, viz. in conformity with the scrip-
tural text: '"Come, let us all become a form of him." Of him alone,
they became a form' (Bṛh. 1.5 21 ³), other sense-organs, like the
eye and the rest, are different modes of the chief vital-breath. They
are not separate entities and cannot, therefore, have a separate re-
lation with the possessor of the vital-breath (viz. the individual soul),
our purpose being served if they have a relation with the vital-breath
alone,—the author replies here.
"On account of the designation of those," i.e. of them "as different
from the chief" vital-breath in the passage: 'From him arise the vital-
breath, the mind and all the sense-organs' (Muṇḍ. 2.1.3), separate
entities indeed are designated by the scriptural text: 'Those prāṇas
1 G.B. 2.4.16, p. 250, Chap. 2.
2 Ś. Bh., B.
3 Vide Bṛh. 1.5.21 for the story. When the different sense-organs were
created by Prajāpati, death came and overcame them all, with the exception of
the vital-breath. Thereupon, the sense-organs decided to assume the form of the
vital-breath.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 18.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 469
other than the chief, are the sense-organs' Otherwise, the eye and the
rest too being understood—like apāna and so on—simply by the
phrase. 'From him arise the vital-breath', the separate mention:
'and all the sense-organs' must be meaningless. Hence the sense-
organs being separate entities, their relation with the possessor of the
vital-breath or the individual soul must be depicted to be certainly
different from their relation with the vital-breath.
It cannot be said also that the mind too, which is separately
designated, cannot be a sense-organ,—since in accordance with the
Smṛti passages, viz.. "The sense-organs of which the mind is the sixth"
(Gītā 15.7), "The sense-organs are ten and one" (Gītā 13 6), as well
as in accordance with the scriptural text: 'There are ten sense-organs
in a person, the soul is the eleventh' (Bṛh. 3.9 4), the mind as well is
admitted to be a sense-organ. The separate designation of the mind,
too, is not futile, since the mind being the leader of the sense-organs
in conformity with the text: '"And of the sense-organs, I am the
mind"' (Gītā 10.22), such a separate mention has a meaning. By
the scriptural text: '"Come let us assume all become a form of him
alone"' (Bṛh. 1.5.21), on the other hand, it is denoted simply that the
activities of the sense-organs are under the control of the vital-breath.
The sense-organs, also, being under the vital-breath, are called 'vital-
breaths',¹ just as in the text: 'All this verily, is Brahman' (Chānd.
3.14.1), the term 'Brahman' has been applied to the world, it being
under His control.
SŪTRA 18
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL TEXT REGARDING DIFFERENCE
AND ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the scriptural mention of the difference" of the
chief vital-breath from speech and the rest at the end of the section
treating of speech, etc. thus: 'Then, verily, they said to the breath
in the mouth' (Bṛh. 1.3.7²); "and on account of the difference" of
the sense-organs, the apprehenders of sense-objects, from the best
vital-breath, the cause of the subsistence of the body, the sense-organs
and the rest,—they are separate entities.
¹ Prāṇa. ² Ś, Bh.