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

[SŪ. 3 2 4
ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 511
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 4
“AND BECAUSE (A DREAM IS) INDICATIVE (OF FUTURE GOOD OR
EVIL), IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCRIPTURAL TEXT AND THOSE WHO
ARE VERSED IN THAT DECLARE (IT) ”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
From the scriptural texts, viz. : “When during works undertaken
for a wish, a man sees a woman in his dreams, let him there conceive
of success in that dream-vision” (Chānd. 5.2.9¹) “Now, when
a man sees a black person with black teeth in his dreams, he (i.e. the
black person) kills him (i.e. the dreamer)” (Ait. Ār. 3.2.4 ²), it is
known that a dream is “indicative” of future good or evil. “Those
who are versed” in the results of dreams also “declare” the same
thing. Now, we do not always dream dreams that indicate the
approach of what is desired ; again, we often dream dreams that
predict undesirable results. Hence none but the Supreme Soul is the
maker of the dream-chariots and the rest.
Vedānta-kaustubha
That the dream-chariots and the rest are created by the Lord
is proved further by the following facts : dreams are “indicative”
of good and ill, “in accordance with scriptural texts” like “When
during works undertaken for a wish, a man sees a woman in his dreams,
let him there conceive of success in that dream-vision” (Chānd.
5.2.9), “Now, when a man sees a black person with black teeth in
his dreams, he (i.e. the black person) kills him (i.e. the dreamer)”
(Ait. Ār. 3.2.4). Hence, they must be due to another. “Those
who are versed” with the science of dreams too “declare” that a
dream is indicative of good or evil thus : “Mounting on cows,
buffalos and elephants, mounting on palaces, hill-tops and trees,
besmearing one’s self with feces, weeping, death and coming to an
unapproachable place in a dream are lucky. There is death, un-
doubtedly, for him whom in his dream a woman, dressed in black
and smeared with black garlands, embraces” and so on. If the

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B ² Pp. 136-7 Ś, R, ŚK, B.

512 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 4
ADH. 1.]
individual soul were the creator of dream-objects, then it would
have enjoyed happiness alone by creating women and the rest which
are indicative of good alone, but it would never have created a black
person and the rest for its own destruction.
And the followers of that branch too ¹ speak of the Supreme Soul
as the maker of objects of desires, thus. "He is awake in those that
are asleep, the Person, making desire after desire That alone is
the bright, that is Brahman, that alone is said to be the Immortal
In Him all the worlds rest, no one surpasses Him" (Katha 5.8), it
being impossible for the marks, stated in the scriptural text about
dream-creation and referring to the Supreme Lord, to refer to the
individual soul
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation different, viz. "Because a (dream though unreal)
(is yet) indicative (of the future), those who are versed in it also
declare (this)" That is, although the dream itself is unreal, yet the
thing indicated by it may be real. Further, the dream-objects are
created by the individual soul itself, and not by the Supreme Soul,
though it is not denied altogether that the Supreme Self is active in
dreams, since the Lord of all, the Supreme Soul, is the controller of
the soul at all times and in all its states ². This view is diametrically
opposed to Nimbārka's view, as evident.
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
They change the order of the sūtras 4–6 which will be noticed
at the end of sūtra 6 Interpretation same
Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz. "And (the individual soul and not
the Lord is the creator of dream-objects,) (for) (a dream is) indicative
(of future good and evil), those who are versed in it (also) declare
(so)". That is, it is unreasonable to suppose that what is created by
¹ Viz. Katha., mentioned by the prima facie objector.
² Ś, B. 3.2.4, pp. 309-10.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 5.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 513
the Intelligent Being can be subject to pleasure and pain.¹ Hence
the dream-objects which are such cannot be due to the Lord, although,
of course, He being the controller of all, is the cause here too in that
sense.²
Baladeva
Baladeva begins a new topic here, ending with the next sūtra,
and concerned with establishing that the dream-objects are real.
Hence the sūtra. “And (a dream-object is real) for (it is) indicative
(of the future), those who are versed in it (also) declare (so)”.³
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 5
“BUT THROUGH THE WISH OF THE HIGHEST, (THE REAL ATTRIBUTES
OF THE SOUL REMAIN) HIDDEN, FOR FROM THAT ITS BONDAGE
AND (ITS REVERSE) (VIZ. RELEASE) (RESULT).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If the soul be the maker of the dream-objects, then the attributes
of having true resolves and the rest must surely be admitted on its
part. But through the wish of the Supreme Lord in accordance
with the deeds of the soul, they remain “hidden” during its state of
bondage. From Him alone the soul’s bondage and release arise,
as declared by the scriptural text: “The cause of transmigration,
bondage, subsistence, salvation” (Śvet. 6.16 ⁴).
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. Why should the soul’s attributes of having
true resolves and the rest remain hidden during its state of bondage?—
the author replies:
1 “Na hi prajñā-jasya sukha-duhkha-yogyatayāvakalpate.” It is difficult
to see the point of this argument, and it is difficult to see how Bhāskara would
have answered Nimbārka’s objection to this view.
2 Bh B. 3.2.4, p 161
3 G.B 3.2.4, p. 43, Chap 3.
4 Correct quotation: “Saṁsāra-mokṣa-sthiti-bandha-hetuḥ” Vide Śvet.
6.16, p. 72.

514 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3 2. 5.
ADH 1,]
The word "but" is meant for disposing of the above objection.
Though the attributes of having true resolves and the rest are
natural to the individual soul,—which is a part of Brahman, which
is deluded by nescience consisting in beginningless karmas, and which,
for that very reason, has its face turned away from the Lord,—yet
they become "hidden" during its state of bondage. Why? "Through
the wish of the Highest," i.e. 'through the wish' or the resolution in
accordance with the deeds of the soul, "of the Highest" or of the
Supreme Person. The word "for" implies emphasis. "From that"
resolution alone "its" "bondage and (its) reverse" arise, as declared
by the scriptural texts: "The cause of transmigration, bondage,
subsistence and salvation" (Śvet. 6.16). "For, truly, when he finds
fearlessness as a foundation in that which is invisible, incorporeal,
undefined and unsupported, then he is gone to fearlessness. When,
however, he makes the smallest distinction therein, then he comes to
have fear" (Tait. 2.7) and so on; and in accordance with the Smṛti
passages: "The binder with the noose of the world and the liberator
from the noose of the world" and so on.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation absolutely different, viz. "But through the medita-
tion on the Highest, the hidden (attributes of the soul become manifest),
for from that its bondage and (its) reverse (arise)." That is, if it be
said that the soul being a part of Īśvara is possessed of the power
of realizing all its wishes, and hence it creates real dream-objects,—
the answer is that the real attributes of the soul, viz its power of
realizing all wishes and so on, remain hidden through nescience and
become manifest only through the meditation on the Lord. ¹ Thus
their interpretation of the first portion of the sūtra is diametrically
opposed to Nimbārka's.
Nimbārka Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Through the wish of the Highest Through the meditation on
(the real attributes of the soul the Highest the hidden (at-
become) hidden. tributes of the soul become
manifest).
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ Ś. B. 3.2.5, p. 711; Bh. B. 3.2.5, p. 162.

[sū. 3. 2. 6.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 515
Baladeva
Interpretation different, viz. "But through the wish of the
Highest, (the dream consciousness is) sublated, for from that its
bondage and (its) reverse (arise)." That is, if it be objected that
dreams must be unreal, since the dream-consciousness is sublated by
the waking-consciousness, the reply is that the dream-objects are
withdrawn by the wish of the Lord alone. Since the Lord can cause
the bondage and release of the soul, there is nothing strange in His
creating and withdrawing the dream-objects Hence the dream-
objects are not unreal, simply because they are sublated.¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (end)
SŪTRA 6
"OR THAT (RESULTS) ALSO FROM THE CONNECTION WITH THE
BODY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And "that" obscuration takes place by way of its connection
with nescience.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"That also," i.e. the obscuration of the soul's attributes of
having true resolves and the rest, arises through its "connection with
the body" at the time of creation, and through its connection with
prakṛti at the time of dissolution The sense is that the Lord, who
takes into consideration the deeds of the soul, purposely conceals
the form of the soul which, as a part of Himself, is endowed with
the attributes of having true resolves and the rest,—and this He
does by connecting the soul with prakṛti in its effected and causal
states. Hence it is established that the dream-objects, conforming
to the deeds of particular souls and to be enjoyed by them respectively,
are created by the Lord, and not by the individual soul.
Here ends the section entitled "The intermediate place" (1).
¹ G B. 3.2 5, p. 45, Chap 3

[SŪ. 3. 2. 7.
516 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 2.]
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
They change the order of sūtras 4-6 thus:
Nimbārka, etc. Rāmānuja, etc.
"Sūcakasya hi . . " (4). "Parābhidhyānāt . . ." (4).
"Parābhidhyānāt . . ." (5). "Deha-yogād vā . . ." (5).
"Deha-yogād vā . ." (6). "Sūcakasya hi . ." (6)
Baladeva
He takes it as an adhikarana by itself, concerned with showing
that the waking-consciousness too is due to the Lord. Hence the
sūtra: "Or that too (viz. the waking-consciousness which arises) from
(the soul's connection with the body), (is caused by the Lord)".¹
Adhikaraṇa 2: The section entitled "The ab-
sence of that" (Sūtras 7-8)
SŪTRA 7
"THE ABSENCE OF THAT (TAKES PLACE) IN THE VEINS AND IN THE
SOUL, BECAUSE OF THE SCRIPTURAL TEXT TO THAT EFFECT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The Highest Self is the maker of the dream-objects. During
deep sleep too, the soul enters into the vein and the pericardium,
and then rests in the Highest Self alone, in accordance with the
scriptural text: "Then he comes to fall asleep in those veins" (Chānd.
8.6.3²) "Having crept out through them, he lies in the pericardium"
(Bṛh. 2.1.19³).
¹ G.B. 3.2.6, pp. 46-47, Chap. 3.
² Ś, R, ŚK, B. Correct quotation: "Sṛpto bhavati" and not "Suspto
bhavati". In that case, the passage would mean, 'Then he has crept into those
vein'. Vide Chānd. 8.6.3, p. 436.
³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 7.
ADH. 2] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 517
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, it has been demonstrated that the dream-objects
are not created by the dreamers themselves, and that they are
transitory. This has considerably promoted the growth of right
discrimination and dispassion After that, now for further promot-
ing the growth of those very same things, the place of deep sleep is
being considered
It is declared by scripture that deep sleep takes place in the veins :
“Then when he is sound asleep, composed, placid, he knows no dream,
then he comes to fall asleep in these veins” (Chānd 8 6.3). Another
scriptural text declares that deep sleep takes place in the pericardium ·
“Now when he comes to fall into a profound sleep, then he does
not know anything whatsoever, then—there are seventy-two thousand
veils called ‘Hitā’ which lead from the heart to the pericardium—
having crept out through them, he lies in the pericardium” (Brh.
3.19 1) Again, a third text declares that deep sleep takes place in
Brahman also: “That which is the ether within the heart, in that he
lies” (Brh 4 4.22), “When this person sleeps, as we say, then, my
dear, he comes to be united with the Existent” (Chānd 6.8.1),
“Embraced by the intelligent soul, he knows nothing that is outside,
nothing that is inside” (Brh 4.3 21) and so on Here the doubt is as
to whether the soul sleeps in any of these three places, or whether all
of them together constitute its place of sleep. The prima facie
view is: The soul can sleep in any one of these three places, but
can never sleep simultaneously in all three of them. So, the soul
sleeps in any of these three
We reply. “The absence of that”, i e the absence of dream, viz.
deep sleep, takes place “in the veins”, “in the soul,” i.e. in Brahman,
denoted by the term ‘ether’, and in the pericardium as implied by
the term “and” (in the sūtra)—i e in a particular place intermediate
between the vein and Brahman. The sense is that the vein, the peri-
cardium and Brahman conjointly constitute the place of deep sleep
and not separately. Why ? “On account of the scriptural text
to that effect,” i.e. on account of the scriptural declaration that the
vein, the pericardium and Brahman are the place of deep sleep
conjointly. Of these three, again, the vein and the pericardium
are but of a secondary importance,—they are like a palace and a
bedstead respectively. But the Highest Self alone is of primary

[sū. 3. 2 8.
518 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH 2.]
importance—He is like a bed, and as such He alone is the immediate
place of deep sleep,—this is the resultant meaning ¹
SŪTRA 8
"HENCE THE AWAKENING FROM HIM"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
For that very reason, the soul rises from the Supreme Lord,
as declared by the scriptural passage: "Having come back from the
Existent" (Chānd 6 10.2 ²)
Vedānta-kaustubha
None but the Supreme Soul is the place where souls rest during
deep sleep "Hence," i.e. for this reason, "the awakening",
i.e. their re-attaining the place (or the condition) of waking, "from
him", i.e. from the Supreme Soul alone, fits in, in accordance with
the statement · "Having come back from the Existent, they do not
know: 'We have come back from the Existent'" (Chānd. 6.10 2).
If anyone else be the place of the soul's deep sleep, then the
text: "Having come from the Existent" (Chānd 6 10.2) will be
contradicted. The sense is that it is not possible for the soul to lie
down in one place and arise from another. Hence it is established
that Brahman is the place of deep sleep.
Here ends the section entitled "The absence of that" (2).
1 I.e. a man sleeping on a bed is at the same time sleeping on the bedstead
and within the house. As such the bed, the bedstead and the house are his
places of sleep conjointly, yet his immediate place of sleep is the bed In the
very same manner the vein, the pericardium and Brahman are the places of the
soul's deep sleep, yet Brahman is the immediate place.
2 Ś, R, ŚK, B.

[sū. 3 2. 9
ADH 3 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 519
Adhikarana 3. The section entitled "The re-
membrance of work, text and injunction".
(Sūtra 9)
SŪTRA 9
'BUT HE ALONE (RISES) ON ACCOUNT OF WORK, REMEMBRANCE,
TEXT AND INJUNCTION"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"He alone," ı.e. that individual soul which was asleep, arises,—
because having half finished a piece of work the previous day, he
remembers it and finishes the other half the next day; because there
is a scriptural text to that effect· "Whatever they are in this world,
whether tiger, or lion, or wolf, or boar, ,¹ or gnat, or mosquito,
that they become" (Chānd. 6 9 2 ²) and so on, and because of the
injunctions: "Let one perform the Agni-hotra" (Maitrī 6 36 ³), "Let
one meditate on the soul" (Bṛh. 1.4 7 ⁴) and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now apprehending the objection, vız. Naturally, the soul, which
has entered Brahman, the place of deep sleep, and has thereby become
freed from the two states, the abode of miseries, will never rise from
Him again—the author replies.
The doubt is as to whether he alone who was asleep arises at the
time of awakening, or some one else? On the suggestion, vız. One
who has attained Brahman will not rise from Him again, and hence
not the sleeper himself, but another rises—
We reply· The word "but" is meant for disposing of the view.
"He alone" who was asleep arises, and not another. Why? On
account of the following reasons, viz. work, remembrance, text and in-
junction.⁵ Having begun a piece of work, accomplishable in two days,
a man goes to sleep at night, and on arising again, that very man finishes
it the next day. From such work it is known that that very one who
was asleep is now awoke. This is so, also on account of remembrance,
¹ The portion "kīṭo vā pataṅga vā" left out. Vide Chānd. 6.9.2, p 341
² Ś, R, ŚK, B. ³ Bh. ⁴ Bh, B.
⁵ Note that while Nimbārka interprets the compound "karmānusmṛti-
śabda-vidhibhyaḥ" as (1) remembrance of work, (2) text, (3) injunction, Śrīnī-
vāsa interprets it as (1) work, (2) remembrance, (3) text, and (4) injunction,
like Śaṁkara and others.

[sū 3. 2 10.
520 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.]
i.e. on account of the recognition, viz. ‘I, who was asleep at night,
am awake in the morning’, on account of texts like: “All these crea-
tures go day after day to the world of Brahman, (but) do not know¹
it” (Chānd. 8.3.2), “Whatever they are in this world, whether tiger,
or lion, or wolf, or boar, . . . . ,² or gnat, or mosquito, that they
become” (Chānd. 6 9 2) and so on; and on account of the injunctive
texts, referring to enjoyment and emancipation, such as: “Let one
desirous of heaven perform the Agni-hotra” (Maitrī 6.36), “Let one
desirous of heaven perform sacrifices” (Tait. Saṁ. 2.5 5³), “Tranquil,
let one meditate” (Chānd. 3.14.1), “Let one meditate on the soul”
(Bṛh. 1 4 7) and so on. If some one other than the person who went
to sleep arose, then these reasons would have been set aside. Hence
it is established that the very same person who went to sleep arises.
Here ends the section entitled “The remembrance of work, text
and injunction” (3).
COMPARISON
All others interpret the compound “karmānusmṛti-śabda-vidhi-
bhyaḥ” like Śrīnivāsa, i.e. giving four reasons and not three like
Nimbārka.⁴
Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled “The swoon-
ing person”. (Sūtra 10)
SŪTRA 10
“IN THE SWOONING PERSON, (THERE IS) HALF-ATTAINMENT, ON
ACCOUNT OF BEING LEFT OVER.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In one who is in a swoon, there is “half-attainment” of death.⁵
The state of swoon is not included among the states of deep sleep and
¹ Correct quotation: “vindanti” (=find).
² See footnote 1, p 519. ³ P. 208, line 27, vol. 2.
⁴ Ś, B. 2.3.9, pp. 719 ff; Śrī. B. 2.3.9, p. 226, Part 2; Bh. B. 2.3.9, p. 163;
ŚK B. 2.3.9, pp. 240-241, Part 9, G.B. 2.3.9, p. 51, Chap. 3.
⁵ I.e. a swooning person attains half the characteristics of death, or is
half-dead.

[sū. 3. 2. 10.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 521
the rest. Hence “on account of being left over”, it is something
different.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the state of swoon is being considered.
On the doubt, viz. whether the well-known state of swoon is
included under the states of deep sleep and the rest, or is something
different from them, the suggestion being: There are four well-known
states of the soul, viz. waking, dream, deep sleep and death. So the
state of swoon must be included under them, there being no proof
that swoon is something different from them,—
We reply: “In the swooning person” there is “half-attainment”.
One who has fainted owing to excessive grief is said to be a ‘swooning
person’. He attains ‘half’ the place of death.¹ That is, the state of
swoon is something different from the other four states. Why?
“On account of being left over.” Thus, the state of swoon is not
the same as the state of waking or the state of dream, on account
of the absence of knowledge.² It is also not identical with death,
on account of the presence of life and heat.³ Nor can it be said
that deep sleep itself is swoon, because the soul being embraced
by the Existent then, deep sleep is a state of bliss.⁴ Hence it is
established that “on account of being left over”, the state of swoon is
not one among the states of deep sleep and the rest, but is a different
state.
Here ends the section entitled “swooning person” (4).
¹ I e. makes a half-way approach to death.
² I.e a swooning person is unconscious, while a person who is awake or a
dreaming person is conscious.
³ I.e a swooning person is still alive and warm unlike a dead person.
⁴ I.e. a swooning person does not enjoy any bliss as a person in a deep
sleep does.

[SŪ 3. 2. 11.
522 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
Adhikarana 5. The section entitled "Possessed
of two-fold characteristics". (Sūtras 11–21)
SŪTRA 11
"NOT ON ACCOUNT OF PLACE EVEN (IS THERE ANY IMPERFECTION)
ON THE PART OF THE HIGHEST, BECAUSE EVERYWHERE (HE IS
DESCRIBED AS) POSSESSED OF TWO-FOLD CHARACTERISTICS"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
It has been already proved ¹ that the respective imperfections
of the souls do not pertain to the Highest Self, though abiding within
all, since He is not subject to karmas. There is no imperfection
"on the part of the Highest, on account of place even", since "every-
where" Brahman is stated to be free from all defects and endowed
with all auspicious qualities.
Vedānta-kaustubha
With a view to generating an aversion to transmigratory existence,
the particular states of this individual soul have been briefly demon-
strated above. The attributes of Brahman, the Highest Person, such
as, being the creator of dream-creation, having true resolves, being
the cause of pleasure during deep sleep and so on too have been demon-
strated for the sake of generating an yearning for Him. Now, for
generating an yearning for the Highest, the reverend author wants to
establish that He is free by nature from all faults and is one mass of
all auspicious qualities. Hence he says this.
On the doubt, viz. whether those imperfections,—which arising
from the different places pertain to the individual soul abiding in
those places, viz. waking, dream and deep sleep,—pertain to the
Highest Self, or not,—the prima facie view is as follows: Although
it has been stated in the first chapter under the aphorism: "If it be
objected that enjoyment results, (we reply.) no, on account of dif-
ference" (Br. Sū. 1.2.8), that those imperfections cling only to the
individual soul, a self-conscious agent, but never to the Highest
Self who is not subject to karmas,—yet just as, like Yajñadatta,
the owner of a house, his friend Devadatta too, who has entered
there, comes to be affected by the heat of fire, owing to his connection

¹ Vide V.P.S. 1.2.8.

[Sū. 3. 2. 11.
ADH 5 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 523
with that blazing house,—so the imperfections arising from places
pertain to the Highest Self too.¹
With regard to it we reply. No. There are no imperfections,
arising from those particular places, "on the part of the Highest",
i e. on the part of Brahman full of His own bliss, although He has
entered into those places out of compassion as the inner controller
of the individual souls, His own parts, for their guidance,—"because"
"everywhere", i c. in scriptural and Smṛti passages, the Supreme
Brahman is established to be "possessed of two-fold characteristics",
1.e. as possessed of the marks of being free by nature from all faults
and being an abode of a mass of auspicious qualities. The scriptural
texts are to the effect. "The soul that is free from sins, ageless, death-
less, griefless, without hunger, without thirst, possessed of true
desires, possessed of true resolves" (Chānd. 8.7 1, 3), "Who is omnis-
cient, all knowing" (Muṇḍ 1 1 9; 2.2.7), "Whose penance consists
in knowledge (Mund. 1.1.9), "He who knows the bliss of Brahman"
(Tait. 2.4 1 ; 2.9.1), "Natural is the operation of (His) knowledge
and strength" (Śvet. 6.8) and so on. The Smṛti passages are to the
effect: "He possesses all auspicious qualities; and has drawn out,
by a particle of His own power, the creation of beings ² (V P. 6.5 84 ³),
"He is possessed of might, power, lordship and supreme knowledge,
and is one mass of qualities like His own strength, power and the
rest. He is the highest of the high, in whom, the Lord of the high
and the low,⁴ there are no miseries and the like" (V.P. 6 5 85 ⁵).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation absolutely different, viz. "Not even on account
of place (i e. limiting adjunct), two-fold characteristics (viz. saviśeṣa
¹ Here the house stands for the body, Yajñadatta for the soul, Devadatta
for the Lord. Just as when the house is on fire, the heat affects not only Yajña-
datta, the owner, but also Devadatta, a visitor who has entered into it, so the
imperfections inhering in the body affect not only the individual soul, the owner,
but also the Lord who has entered into it as its ruler.
² Reading: "Sva-śakti-leśāvṛta-bhūta-vargaḥ", meaning: 'Who has covered
the group of beings by a particle of His own power '.
³ P. 837, lines 9-10.
⁴ Reading. "Parāpareśe", meaning the same.
⁵ P. 837, lines 13–16.
4

524 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 12.
ADH 5.]
and nirviśeṣa) (are possible) on the part of the Highest, for everywhere
(Scripture declares it to be nirviśeṣa)” That is, in Scripture two
classes of texts are found, one designating Brahman as possessed of
difference, the other designating Brahman as devoid of difference
This gives rise to a doubt, viz. whether Brahman is both saviśeṣa
and nirviśeṣa The answer is that one and the same thing cannot
have two different natures Hence Brahman cannot be saviśeṣa
even through the limiting adjuncts which do not change its real
nature, but only conceals it for the time being.¹
Bhāskara
Interpretation absolutely different, viz “Not even on account
of place (viz the world and the rest), two-fold characteristics (viz.
sākāra and nirākāra) (are possible) on the part of the Highest, because
everywhere (Scripture declares Him to be nirākāra)”. That is,
although Brahman has two forms—causal or nirākāra and effected or
sākāra,—yet He is to be meditated on in His Nirākāra aspect only,
which is His real form and which He never loses even when He comes
to have a connection with the world and the rest.²
Baladeva
Interpretation absolutely different, viz. “Not even on account
of place (i.e. by the mere fact of His being in two places), two-fold
characteristics (i e. changes of nature) (are possible) on the part of
the Highest, because everywhere (He is present simultaneously)”
That is, though the Lord manifests himself in various places, yet
by reason of His mysterious power, He Himself undergoes no change.³
SŪTRA 12
“IF IT BE OBJECTED: ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE, (WE REPLY )
NO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE STATEMENT OF WHAT IS NOT THAT IN
EACH CASE ”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected· Because of its connection with the body, the
imperfections arising from the difference of states, do indeed pertain
¹ Ś.B. 3.2.11, p 724, lines 8–17. ² Bh. B. 3.2.11, pp. 164-165
³ G.B. pp. 54-55, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3 2. 12.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 525
to the individual soul, though endowed with the attributes of freedom
from sins and the rest. Likewise they may belong to the Highest
as well—we reply. “no”, because nowhere there is any text desig-
nating imperfections on the part of the Inner Controller, on the
contrary, there are texts about His immortality, viz ‘ “He is your
soul, the inner controller, immortal” ’ (Brh. 3.7 3, etc ¹)
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected · The individual soul passes through many
different states and assumes many different bodies (such as human,
divine and so on), and hence the stated imperfections do indeed pertain
to the individual soul, though it is naturally endowed with the attri-
butes of freedom from sins and the rest, established by the statement
of Prajāpati, recorded in the Chāndogya ² Likewise, the Lord too,
the Inner Controller of all, has to pass through many different states
and come into contact with many different bodies. Hence, those
imperfections may pertain to the Highest as well, naturally endowed
with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest,—
We reply: “No”. Why ? “On account of the statement of
what is not that in each case,” i.e. because there is no text designating
the imperfections of the Highest Person “in each case”, i e. in any
state The stated imperfections pertain to the individual soul,—
which though endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and
the rest, has yet its real nature concealed through the wish of the
Highest, in accordance with its karmas,³—but never to the Highest
who has His real nature ever-manifest. Thus, in reference to
the state of waking, there are texts establishing the imperfections
of the individual soul, such as: “Those who are of a stinking conduct
attain a stinking birth” (Chānd 5.10.7) and so on, but none referring
to the imperfections of the Highest. Then, in reference to the state
of dream, there are texts like . “When one sees a black person with
black teeth in his dream, he (i e. the black person) kills him (i.e.
the dreamer” (Ait. Ār. 3 2 4 ⁴) and so on; and in reference to deep

¹ Repeated altogether 20 times (once at the end of each verse) up to the
end of the section beginning with verse 3.7.3.
R, ŚK.
² Vide Chānd. 8.7 1, 3
³ Vide V.K. 3 2.5. ⁴ P 136-137

[SŪ. 3. 2. 12.
526 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
sleep, there are texts like. “All creatures go to this world of Brahman
day by day, (yet) do not find it, for they are carried away by untruth”
(Chānd. 8 3 2) and so on,—all referring to the individual soul, but not
to the Highest Similarly, it should be understood that in reference
to death and the rest as well there is ‘statement of what is not that’
Our view is further confirmed by the texts designating the immor-
tality of the Inner Controller and proving His faultlessness, viz..
‘ “He is your soul, the inner controller, the immortal ” ’ (Bṛh 3.7.3,
etc ). The same text is repeated in connection with each of the
objects to be controlled,—beginning with the earth, water, fire and
sky, and ending with the skin, understanding and semen ¹,—men-
tioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka in the text which begins “He who
dwelling in the earth is other than the earth, whom the earth does
not know, of whom the earth is the body, who rules the earth from
within” (Bṛh. 3 7.3).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Reading different, viz. adds “na” in the beginning thus: “Na
bhedāt . . .”. Interpretation also different, viz.: “If it be objected
that (Brahman is) not (nirviśeṣa), on account of difference (of forms),
(we reply:) No, on account of the statement of what is not that in
each case”. That is, it may be objected that since Brahman is desig-
nated by Scripture as having various forms, e.g. as having four feet,
sixteen parts and so on, it must be held to be saviśeṣa, i.e. possessed
of attributes and forms; and there is no contradiction involved here
in taking Brahman to be so, the difference of Brahman’s forms being
due to limiting adjuncts. That is, Brahman is both saviśeṣa and
nirviśeṣa according to Scripture. To this the reply is that Scripture
depicts Brahman as nirviśeṣa only, even though it mentions its dif-
ferent forms, due to limiting adjuncts,—for in every passage describing
such adjuncts of Brahman, it is itself described as free from all diver-
sity. Such designations are for the purpose of meditation only, but
their real meaning is non-difference only ²
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ Vide Bṛh. 3.7.3–3.7.23.
² “Bhedasya upāsanārthatvād abhede tātparyyāt.” Ś.B. 3.2.14, p. 725.

[sū. 3. 2. 13.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 527
Bhāskara
Interpretation absolutely different. He continues the topic of
the Nirākāra-upāsanā of Brahman. Hence the sūtra “If it be objected
that on account of difference, (1.e. on account of the corporeal and
incorporeal forms of Brahman as designated in Scripture,) (Brahman
is not to be worshipped in his casual or formless aspect) (we reply·)
no, on account of the statement of what is not that in each case,
(1.e. because there is no text which designates difference on the part
of Brahman due to limiting adjuncts)”.¹ Hence everywhere the one
Brahman is to be worshipped
Baladeva
Reading different, vız. like Śamkara, he adds a “na” in the
beginning. Interpretation too different. He continues the theme
of the previous sūtra, viz. the oneness of the Lord in spite of His
various manifestations in different places. Hence the sūtra: “If
it be objected that on account of difference (i e because the manifes-
tations of the Lord are different), (the oneness of the Lord, alleged
above, is not possible), (we reply:) no, because there is the statement
of the absence of that (viz difference) with regard to each (of these
manifestations)”. That is, with regard to each of the manifestations
of the Lord, Scripture is careful to point out that He is one.²
SŪTRA 13
“MOREOVER THUS SOME (TEACH).”
“Moreover” the followers of “some” branch teach. “One of these
two eats the sweet berry, the other, without eating, looks on” (Rg. V.
1.164 20;³ Muṇḍ. 3.1.1; Śvet. 4 6⁴)
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“Moreover”, the followers of “some” branch teach that though
the individual soul and the Supreme Lord abide in the same place,
it is the individual soul alone that is subject to karmas and
1 Bh. B. 3 2.12, p. 165. 2 G.B. 3 2.12, pp. 55-56, Chap. 2.
3 P. 146, lines 1-3. 4 R, ŚK.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 14.
528 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
participates in imperfections, but not the Highest who is not subject
to karmas, thus: "Two birds, close friends, cling to the same tree.
Of these two, one eats the sweet berry; the other, without eating, looks
on" (Ṛg V. 1.164.20; Muṇḍ. 3.1.1, Śvet. 4.6).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
They quote from the Kaṭha and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣads ¹ to
show that Scripture teaches the essential non-difference of Brahman.²
Baladeva
He quotes from the Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad ³ to show that the Lord
is one, though appearing as many.⁴
SŪTRA 14
"FOR (BRAHMAN) IS WITHOUT FORM (I.E. NOT AN ENJOYER)
INDEED, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING THE PRINCIPAL (AGENT) WITH
REGARD TO THAT (VIZ. CREATION OF NAMES AND FORMS)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The Highest is the principal agent, the creator of names and
forms, as declared by the text: " 'Let me evolve name and form' "
(Chānd 6.3.2 ⁵). Hence He is not the enjoyer of the names and forms
to be created by Himself, and as such Brahman is "without form".
Hence Brahman is not touched even by an odour of imperfections.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. There may not be any imperfections on
the part of Brahman even on account of place; still as the creator
of names and forms, Brahman must be their enjoyer too, for generally
a creator creates objects for enjoying them. Names and forms
¹ Kaṭha. 4.11; Śvet. 1.12. ² Ś.B. 3.2.13, p. 725; Bh. B.
³ Muṇḍ. 7 ⁴ G.B. 3.2.13, p. 58, Chap. 3,
⁵ Not quoted by others.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 14,
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 529
are known to have Brahman as their creator from the use of the first
person in the text: ' "Let me evolve name and form " ' (Chānd. 6.3.2).
Hence it is established that the Supreme Brahman is subject to kar-
mas, and every imperfection is possible on the part of one who is
subject to karmas,—the author replies:
One to whom the forms together with the names,—such as the
divine bodies and the rest, created by Brahman in accordance with
the works of the individual soul,—are not objects of enjoyment is
"without form". Hence Brahman, who is "without form indeed"
does not proceed to evolve names and forms for His own enjoyment,
since all His desires are eternally fulfilled The word "for" indicates
the absence of all imperfections, arising from the material names
and forms, on the part of Brahman. Why? "On account of being
the principal (agent) with regard to that," i e. because "with regard
to that", or with regard to that act, Brahman is the principal agent,
the creator of names and forms, in accordance with the scriptural
text. "The ether, verily, is the creator of names and forms"
(Chānd. 8.14.1.). That the Highest creates names and forms for
the sake of the individual soul, is indicated by the words 'by the
individual soul' (jīvena).¹ The individual soul, possessed of the
stated marks, is a part of Brahman ; and Brahman, the Whole, dwells
in it, in accordance with the scriptural text: "He who dwelling
in the soul" (Śat Br. 14.6.7 30 ²). Here,³ any activity in connection
with the creation of names and forms being impossible on the part
of a mere part (viz. the individual soul), the term 'individual soul'
refers to Brahman, the Whole, acting for the good of the part.
Hence the two words 'jīvena' and 'ātmanā' refer to the same object
(viz. Brahman). The individual soul being subject to karmas is
connected with these forms, and hence imperfections are possible
on its part. But Brahman, though the creator of names and forms
in accordance with the works of the individual souls, is not the
enjoyer of their fruits, and as such the stated imperfections can
never pertain to Him. Hence Brahman is possessed of a two-fold
characteristic.
¹ Vide Chānd. 6.3.2—"Anena jīven-ātmanā anupraviśya nāma-rūpe vyā-
karavāṇi".
² P. 1074, line 18.
³ Viz. in the above passage—Chānd 6.3.2.

[sū. 3. 2 15.
530 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
Interpretation different, viz. “For (Brahman is) without form
(i.e nirākāra) only (and not both sākāra and nirākāra), because of the
primariness of that (viz. of the texts teaching that Brahman is form-
less)”. That is, the texts which attribute forms to Brahman are
not the main purport of Scripture, since they simply enjoin medita-
tion, and do not set forth the real nature of Brahman ¹
Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz. “For (Brahman is) without form
indeed, because He is the principal (being) ²
After this sūtra, Bhāskara reads an additional sūtra, not found
in the commentaries of others, which is as follows: “Asthūlam ananv-
ahrasvam-adīrgham-aśabdam asparśam-arūpam-avyayam”, meaning
“(Brahman is) non-gross, non-fine, non-short, non-long, without
sound, without touch, without form, immutable” Hence such a
nirākāra or formless Brahman is to be worshipped, and not the sākāra
Brahman.³
Baladeva
He begins a new adhikaraṇa here concerned with the question
of the form of Brahman (four sūtras). Hence the sūtra: “For (Brah-
man is) without a form, because that (viz the form) is the chief (viz.
Brahman)”. That is, Brahman is formless in the sense that He has
not the form, but is the form itself, since the body of Brahman is
identical with Brahman Himself.⁴
SŪTRA 15
“AND (BRAHMAN IS) POSSESSED OF LIGHT, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING
NOT DEVOID OF MEANING.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Untouched by darkness, “possessed of light”—Brahman, pos-
sessed of such a two-fold characteristic, is designated by one text.
¹ Ś B. 3.2.14, p. 726. ² Bh. B, 3.2.14, p. 166.
³ Bh. B. 3 2 15, p. 166. ⁴ G B 3.2 14, p. 59, Chap. 3.