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

[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.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 19.
470 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 8.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
Having begun thus: 'They said to speech' (Bṛh. 1.3.2), and
having concluded the section treating of speech and the rest, destroyed
by the demons, Scripture goes on to declare the chief vital-breath as
different from the sense-organs like speech, etc. in a passage in a
different section: 'Then, verily, they said to the breath in the mouth'
(Bṛh. 1.3.7) There is also a great difference between them, such
as: the best vital-breath is the cause of the holding up of the body,
the sense-organs and so on, while the sense-organs have speech and
the rest for their objects, and so on. Hence, the sense-organs are
different from the chief vital-breath,—this is the sense. Thus it
is established that the sense-organs ¹,—presided over by the gods,
connected with the individual soul, and denoted by the term 'sense-
organ',—are different from the best vital-breath.
Here ends the section entitled "The superintending of fire and
the rest" (7).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva
They divide this sūtra into two different sūtras, thus: "Bheda-
śruteḥ" and "Vailakṣaṇāc ca".
Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "The making
of name and form". (Sūtras 19–21)
SŪTRA 19
"BUT THE MAKING OF NAME AND FORM (IS THE FUNCTION) OF
HIM WHO RENDERS TRIPARTITE, ON ACCOUNT OF TEACHING."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The evolution of names and forms too,—mentioned in the texts:
'That divinity thought: "Come, let me, having entered into these
¹ Prāṇas.

[SŪ. 2. 4 19.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 471
three deities with this living soul, evolve name and forms"' (Chānd
6.3.2 ¹), '"Let me make each of them tripartite"' (Chānd. 6.3 3 ²)—
is the work of the Supreme Being alone "who renders tripartite".
He alone who made each of the deities tripartite is the creator of names
and forms like fire, sun and the rest. Why? Because beginning
thus: 'That divinity' (Chānd. 6.3.2), the text goes on to teach that
the evolution (of names and forms) is due to the Supreme Deity thus:
'"Let me, having entered with this living soul, evolve name and
form"' ³ (Chānd. 6.3.2).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, there being an enquiry with regard to the characteristic
marks of the object which one should desire to enquire into (viz.
Brahman), it has been established in the preceding chapter ⁴, that He
is the cause of the world. Here, on the other hand, with a view to
confirming it and demonstrating the cause of the world as held by us,
it has been firmly established, after an examination of the cause
as designated by others, ⁵ that the ether and the rest are created by
Brahman. Then, the author is, now, removing a doubt as to whether
the evolution of name and form is due to the Supreme Brahman—a
doubt arising from the word 'individual soul' in the scriptural text
to be cited hereafter.
The evolution of name and form is mentioned in the Chāndogya,
under the section teaching of the Existent, in the passages: 'That
divinity thought: "Come, let me, having entered into these three
deities with the living soul (jīvātman), evolve name and form"'
(Chānd. 6.3.2), '"Let me make each of them tripartite"' (Chānd.
6.3.3). The question is: Is this evolution due to the individual soul
or to the Supreme Soul? If it be suggested: To the individual soul
alone, as indicated by the phrase: 'having entered with this living
soul',—
We reply. The word "but" is meant for disposing of the prima
facie view. "The making of name and form," i.e the evolution of
name and form, can be the work "of one who renders tripartite",
i.e. of the Supreme Soul alone, omniscient and omnipotent who made
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ² Op. cit.
³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ⁴ Vide Br. Sū. 1.1.2.
⁵ In the 2nd pāda of the 2nd chap.

[SŪ. 2. 4. 20.
472 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 8.]
each of the deities tripartite. Why? Having begun thus: "That
divinity thought" (Chānd. 6 3.2), the text goes on to designate,—
through the use of the first person: " 'Let me evolve name and form'"
(Chānd. 6.3.2),—the Lord's resolve to evolve names and forms thus:
" 'Let me make each of them tripartite' " (Chānd. 6.3.3). Then, for
fulfilling this desire, having made each of the deities tripartite prior
to the creation of the egg, having then created the egg, and having
then entered therein, He made names and forms. The scriptural
text about tripartition secondarily implies the process of making each
element five-fold. Thus, as the Supreme Brahman alone, who renders
tripartite, has been designated as the creator of names and forms; and
as the individual soul is incapable of creating names and forms, the
evolution is due to the former alone. The motive for using the
term 'individual soul' (jīvātman) here will be made clear by the
aphorism: "For (Brahman is) without form" (Br. Sū. 3.2.14).
SŪTRA 20
"FLESH AND THE REST ARE OF AN EARTHLY NATURE, IN ACCORD-
ANCE WITH SCRIPTURAL TEXT, AND THE OTHER TOO."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
That in the body there are the evolutes of fire, water and food,
made tripartite, may be ascertained from scriptural text itself, viz.
'From the earth the excreta, flesh and the mind; from water urine,
blood and the vital-breath; from fire the bones, marrow and speech'.¹
Vedānta-kaustubha
With a view to exhibiting the worthlessness of the physical body,
the author is demonstrating that the evolutes of the fire, water and
earth, made tripartite, pertain to the body.
"Flesh and the rest" should be known, "in accordance with
scriptural text", "to be of an earthly nature", i.e. to be arising from,
the earth, made tripartite, and of the form of rice, barley and so on
consumed by the embodied soul. By the phrase: "and so on", the
excreta and the mind are to be understood. The scriptural text is
to the effect: 'The food which is consumed becomes three-fold.
¹ Not quoted by others.

[sū. 2. 4. 21.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 473
That which is its grossest portion becomes the excreta, that which is
the medium, the flesh; that which is the finest, the mind’ (Chānd.
6 5 1) Similarly, the three evolutes of each “of the other two also”,
i e. of water and fire, are to be understood. The urine, blood and the
vital-breath,—these are the evolutes of water. The bones, marrow
and speech,—these are the evolutes of fire. Here, the vital-breath
is taken to be an evolute of water, only because it depends on water
for its existence, the vital-breath being really but a special state
of the air itself.¹ Likewise, the designation of the earthly nature
of the mind is only meant for showing that its well-being depends
to the consumption of food ² The evolutes of fire, too, are to be under-
stood in a similar manner.
SŪTRA 21
“BUT ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIALITY, (THERE IS) THAT DESIGNATION,
THAT DESIGNATION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“But” they are regarded as different is on the ground of the
preponderance of parts
Here ends the fourth quarter of the second chapter in the Vedānta-
pārijāta-saurabha, the explanation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā
texts by the reverend Nimbārka.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. What is the ground of distinguishing
among the evolutes of these three elements, made tripartite,—the
author replies:
The term “but” is meant for disposing of the objection. On
account of the preponderance of one element,³ “the designation”, viz.
that this is an evolute of this, this of that and so on, is proper.
¹ Vide Br. Sū. 2.4.9.
² Vide the story of Śvetaketu who failed to remember and recite the Ṛg-verses
and so on when he was fasting, but remembered and answered everything when
he took food. Vide Chānd. 6.8.7.
³ This explains the compound “Vaiśeṣyāt”

474 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 2. 4. 21
ADH. 8.]
The repetition indicates the conclusion of the chapter. Hence it
is established that there is no contradiction whatsoever among the
scriptural texts which are in concordance with regard to Brahman,
Lord Vāsudeva.
Here ends the section entitled “The making of name and
form” (8).
Here ends the fourth quarter of the second chapter of the holy
Vedānta-kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā by the
reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of the holy
Nimbārka, the founder and the teacher of the sect of the venerable
Sanatkumāra.
Here ends the second chapter entitled “Non-contradiction”.
Résumé
The fourth quarter of the second chapter contains—
1 21 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka;
2. 22 sūtras and 9 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṁkara;
3. 19 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja;
4. 22 sūtras and 9 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara;
5 19 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha;
6. 22 sūtras and 15 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva.
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva divide sūtra 18 in Nimbārka’s
commentary into two separate sūtras. Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
take sūtras 2 and 3 in Nimbārka’s commentary as one sūtra, also
sūtras 14 and 15 as one sūtra.
END OF VOLUME I