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

[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.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 15.
ADH. 5] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 531
"Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness" (Vj.S. 31.18 ¹, Tait. Ār.
3 13.1; Śvet. 3.8;² Gītā 8 9 ³), on account of the text being not devoid
of meaning.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The view that Brahman is possessed of a two-fold characteristic
is being confirmed once more.
Brahman "possessed of light",—that which has light for its
attribute is 'possessed of light',—and untouched by the imperfections
of the objects to be lighted, as implied by the term "and" (in the
sūtra), is possessed of a two-fold characteristic Why? On account
of the texts being not devoid of meaning, viz. "He alone shining
everything shines after him Through his light all this shines"
(Kaṭha. 5.15, Muṇḍ. 2.2.10; Śvet. 6.14), "Of the colour of the sun,
beyond darkness" (Vj.S. 31.18; Tait. Ār. 3.13.1; Śvet. 3.8; Gītā
8 9) and so on. This aphorism is for showing that one text after
another denotes Brahman as possessed of a two-fold characteristic
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
Interpretation absolutely different, viz. "And (Brahman is)
like light, on account of non-futility of texts (which designate Brahman
as possessed of a form)" That is, just as the light of the sun or the
moon, though pervading the entire expanse of the heaven and having
no particular shape as such, appears straight, crooked and so on when
passing through a finger which is straight, crooked and so on, so Brah-
man appears as the Universe through its connection with the limiting
adjunct. Hence it is that the texts which designate Brahman as
having the form of the Universe and so on are not absolutely devoid
of meaning, but serve the purpose of meditation.⁴
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different, viz "And on account of the non-futility
(of texts designating Brahman as possessed of all auspicious qualities
and devoid of all imperfections)". That is, just as (the texts designat-
ing Brahman as) light such as: "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite"

¹ P. 857, lines 10-11. ² P. 201
³ Not quoted by others. ⁴ Ś.B. 3 2.15, pp. 726-27.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 16.
532 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
(Tait 2.1) establish Brahman to be self-manifesting, so certain texts
prove Him to be possessed of two-fold characteristics, viz. having all
auspicious qualities on the one hand and being free from all defects
on the other, both kinds of texts having a definite meaning.¹
Bhāskara
Reading slightly different, viz. substitutes "vā" in place of
"ca".²
Baladeva
Interpretation absolutely different, viz. continues the same topic
about the body of the Lord thus; "And because of the non-futility
(of this conception of the form or body of the Lord) as in the case of
light". That is, just as, though the sun is pure light yet is conceived
as having a definite form for the purpose of meditation, so the Lord,
though a pure light of knowledge and bliss, is yet conceived to have
a form for the purpose of meditation.³
SŪTRA 16
"AND (A SENTENCE IS NOT MEANINGLESS WHEN IT) STATES
THAT ONLY"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
When a text "states that only" or its real meaning only, then
indeed it is not meaningless
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, what makes a text have a meaning or be devoid of
meaning?
When a scriptural text "states that only", i.e. its real meaning
only, then it is not meaningless. The term "and" implies that
if it be taken, by foolish persons, to be referring to what is not its
subject-matter, then it becomes meaningless. This being so, the
texts designating the two-fold characteristics of Brahman being
¹ Śrī. B. 3.2.15, p. 232, Part 2; ŚK. B. 3.2.16, p. 247, Part 9
² Bh B. 3.2 15, p. 166. ³ G.B. 3.2.15, p. 60, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3. 2. 16.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 533
mutually non-contradictory, are literally true and authoritative,—
this is the implied meaning.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different as before, viz. “And (Scripture declares
that only, (viz. that Brahman is pure, non-differentiated conscious-
ness)”.¹
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different, viz. “And (texts like ‘Brahman is
truth, knowledge and infinite’) declare that only”, viz. only that
Brahman is self-manifesting, but does not deny that Brahman has
other qualities, such as, being capable of realizing all His wishes at once
and so on, known from other texts This sūtra and the next answer,
according to them, the prima facie view, viz. that texts like “Brahman
is truth, knowledge and infinite” (Tait. 2 1) only designate Brahman
as devoid of all differences and self-manifesting by nature; while,
on the other hand, texts like: “Not so, not so” (Bṛh. 2.3.6) prove
the qualities of Brahman, such as Omniscience and so on, to be false
Hence Brahman cannot be said to be possessed of two-fold character-
istics, viz having all auspicious qualities and beng free from all
defects whatsoever ²
Baladeva
He continues the same topic about the body of the Lord, viz.
“And (Scripture) declares that only, (viz. that the body of the Lord
is the Lord himself)”. That is, it must not be thought, on the
ground of the previous aphorism, that Brahman has no actual form,
but is conceived to have a form for the sake of meditation only, for
Scripture declares that the Lord does possess a form and that this
form is not different from Him, but the very essence of His self ³

¹ Ś B. 3.2.16, p. 727; Bh B 3.2.17, p. 166.
² Śrī B 3 2.16, p. 232, Part 2, ŚK B. 3.2.16, pp. 247-248, Part 9.
³ G.B 3.2.16, p. 429, Chap 3. “Atra dehād bhinno dehit-y-evam
bhideśvara-vastuni nāsti, kimtu deha eva dehīti labdham.”

[sū. 3. 2. 17.
534 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
SŪTRA 17
"AND (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS (THIS), THEN (IT IS) DECLARED BY
SMRTI TOO."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Numerous texts like: "The Soul that is free from sins" (Chānd.
8.7.1, 3 ¹), "Without parts, without action, tranquil, irreproachable,
stainless" (Śvet. 16.19 ²), "Having true desires, having true resolves"
(Chānd. 8.1 5; 8.7 13 ³) and so on, prove that Brahman is possessed of a
double characteristic. "Then" it is "declared by Smṛti too", thus:
'"I am beyond the perishable and am superior to even the imperishable
Hence in the world and in the Veda I am proclaimed to be the Highest
Person"' (Gītā 15.18 ⁴), '"I am the origin of all, everything proceeds
from me"' (Gītā. 10.8 ⁵), '"Or, what is the use of so much knowledge
to you, O Arjuna? Having pervaded this entire Universe with one
part of mine, I abide"' (Gītā 10 42 ⁶) and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"And" the mass of scriptural texts "shows" that Brahman is
indeed possessed of a two-fold characteristic, viz. "The soul that is
free from sins" (Chānd 8.7 1, 3), "Without parts, without action,
tranquil, irreproachable, stainless" (Śvet. 6.19), "Having true desires,
having true resolves" (Chānd. 8.1.5; 8.7 1, 3), "He who is omnis-
cient, all-knowing" (Muṇḍ. 1 1.9, 2.2.7), "Supreme is his power,
declared to be of various kinds indeed; natural is the operation of his
knowledge and power" (Śvet. 6.8), "Him who is the supreme and
Great Lord of lords; him, who is the supreme God of gods" (Śvet.
6.7), "He is the cause, the cause of the lord of causes" (Śvet. 6.9c ⁷),
"Of him there is no progenitor whatsoever, nor a lord" (Śvet. 6.9
a-b), "This is one bliss of Brahman" (Tait 2 8), "He who knows the
bliss of Brahman does not fear anything" (Tait. 2.4) and so on. This
is "declared by Smṛti too" thus · '"I am beyond the perishable and
am superior to even the imperishable Hence in the world and in
the Veda I am proclaimed to be the Highest Person"' (Gītā 15.18),
¹ Not quoted by others. ² R, ŚK
³ Not quoted by others ⁴ Not quoted by others.
⁵ Op cit. ⁶ R.
⁷ Correct quotation: "Karaṇādhipādhipa", meaning the lord of the lord
of sense-organs, viz. the individual soul Vide Śvet. 6.9, p. 70.

[sū. 3 2. 18.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 535
'"I am the origin of the entire world, likewise the dissolution"' (Gītā
7 6), '"He who knows me unborn, without beginning and the Great
Lord of the world"' (Gītā 10.3), '"The multitudes of gods do not
know my origin, nor the great sages"' (Gītā 10.2), '"Having pervaded
this entire world with a part of mine, I abide"' (Gītā 10.42), '"There
is nothing higher than me, O Dhanañjaya"' (Gītā 7.7), '"For I am
the enjoyer of all sacrifices, and the lord indeed"' (Gītā 9.24) and so
on.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
He quotes from Scripture (Bṛh. 2 3 6, etc.) and Smṛti to show
that Brahman is nirviśeṣa or absolutely free from differences.¹
Bhāskara
He quotes from Scripture (Śvet. 6.13) and Smṛti (Gītā 8.9)
to show that Brahman is self-manifest by nature.²
Baladeva
He quotes from Scripture (Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī) and Smṛti
(Brahma-saṁhitā) to show that the body of the Lord is identical
with the Lord Himself.³
SŪTRA 18
"AND FOR THAT VERY REASON, (THERE IS) THE SIMILE, LIKE THE
SUN AND WATER AND SO ON."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Brahman, though all-pervading, is indeed faultless, possessing
as He does two-fold characteristics. "For that very reason," texts
like: "Likewise,⁴ verily, the one soul abides within many, like
the sun within water-receptacles" (Yāj. Sm. 3.144⁵) and so on,
¹ Ś.B. 3 2.17, p 728. ² Bh. B 3.2.18, p. 167.
³ G B. 3.2.17.
⁴ Correct quotation "tathā" and not "yathā".
⁵ P. 283.
R. ŚK

[sū. 3. 2. 18
536 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
take the help of "the simile of the sun and water and so on" for
establishing Brahman's faultlessness
Vedānta-kaustubha
Brahman, though abiding in many places, is not subject to
even an odour of imperfections arising out of those places. "For
that very reason", in Scripture the following "simile" is employed:
Just as the sun and the rest, though reflected on water and the
like, are not touched by their imperfections, so the Supreme Brahman
too, though abiding in the sentient and the non-sentient, is not
touched by their respective imperfections. The texts to that effect
are as follows: "But just as the one ether becomes divided in the
pots and the rest, so verily, the one soul abides within many,
like the sun within water-receptacles" (Yāj Sm. 3.144), "For the
soul of beings, which is one only, is installed in each separate being,
and is seen as one-fold and many-fold, like the moon reflected on
water" (Brahmab. 6 12 ¹).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
The same simile of the sun and water is interpreted differently
by them, viz. Just as the same sun appears to be many when reflected
on many sheets of water, so the one Brahman appears to be many
through being connected with Upādhis or limiting adjuncts.² How-
ever, Śaṃkara and Bhāskara understand the term 'Upādhi' in two
different senses, as already noted.
Baladeva
He begins a new adhikarana here (one sūtra), concerned with
showing that the worshipper (i.e. the individual soul) is different from
the object worshipped (viz. the Lord). Hence the sūtra: "And for
that very reason, (i.e. because the individual soul is different from
Brahman), the simile, like the sun and water and so on, (is appro-
priate)". That is, in Scripture we meet with the similes of the sun
reflected on water and so on, and such similes simply show that just

¹ P. 338.
² Ś.B. 3.2.18, pp. 328-329; Bh. B. 3.2.19, p 167.

[sū. 3. 2. 19.
ADH 5 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 537
as the sun (or the bimba) is different from its image (or the prati-
bimba), so the Lord is different from the individual soul ¹
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 19)
SŪTRA 19
"BUT ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-APPREHENSION LIKE WATER,
THERE IS NO BEING SO."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
It is doubted. Water is apprehended to be remote from the
sun, but not so the place (viz. the individual soul) from the whole
(viz. the Lord).² Hence the example cited is not to the point.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It is doubted that the example cited does not illustrate the point.
The word "but" is indicative of the doubt. It may be objected
"There is no being so", i.e Brahman is not like the reflected
sun. Why? "On account of the non-apprehension like water," i.e.
water is apprehended to be remote from the sun, and the sun and the
rest, though reflected on it, are yet not touched by its imperfections
as they are remote from it; but all the sentient and the non-sentient
are not apprehended, as in the case of water, to be remote from
Brahman. Compare the scriptural texts: "He who abiding within
the earth" (Bṛh. 3.7.3), "He who abiding within water" (Bṛh. 3.7.4),
"He who abiding in the soul" (Śat. Br. 14.6.7.30 ³), "In whom all
the worlds are situated" (Kaṭha. 5.8, 6.1) and so on; and also
the Smṛti passages: '"The Lord dwells, O Arjuna, in the heart-
region of all'" (Gītā 18.61), '"In me all this is woven"' (Gītā 7.7)
and so on. Hence there is no parallelism between the Supreme
Person, the topic of discussion, and the reflected sun and the rest.
1 G B. 3.2.18, pp. 65-66, Chap. 3.
2 The C.S.S. ed. (p. 54) reads "sthāninah".
3 P. 1074, line 8

538 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [Sū. 3. 2. 20.
ADH. 5 ]
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 20-21)
SŪTRA 20
"(BRAHMAN'S) PARTICIPATION IN THE INCREASE AND DECREASE
ON ACCOUNT OF BEING INCLUDED WITHIN (IS DENIED), ON ACCOUNT
OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO (I.E. THE EXAMPLE AND
THE EXEMPLIFIED) (IT IS) SO."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
With regard to it, we reply: "The participation" of the Lord
of places (i.e. Brahman) "in the increase and decrease" of the places
(i.e. the individual souls and matter),—He being their Inner Con-
troller,—is what is denied by the example. "On account of the
agreement between the two," it is "so", i.e. only the intended portion
is to be understood.
Vedānta-kaustubha
With regard to it, the author replies:
The word 'no' is to be supplied from the preceding aphorism.
In spite of His "being included within" the places, there is no "parti-
cipation in the increase and decrease",—due to those places,—on
the part of Brahman, the Highest, who is the lord of places, in accord-
ance with the scriptural texts: "He who abiding within the earth"
(Bṛh. 3.7.3), "He who abiding within the soul" (Śat. Br. 6.7.30).
This is what is denied by the example of the sun and the rest. "On
account of the agreement between the two (this is) so", i.e. on account
of the agreement between the illustration and the illustrated, only
the relevant portion is to be understood. Thus, just as the ether,
though actually entered within pots, jars and so on, does not parti-
cipate in the faults of increase and decrease,—although the ether
is in every pot and is distinguished conventionally as: 'There is no
water in this pot', 'There is sugar in another', yet it remains one
only,—and just as the sun, reflected on different receptacles of water,
does not participate in the faults of their increase and decrease,
on the contrary manifests a multitude of objects under water,—so
the Supreme Brahman, who is one only, abides as manifold in the
sentient and non-sentient objects as their Inner Controller, but is
not touched by their respective faults, is not divided by their re-
spective differences and does not participate in their increase and

[sū. 3. 2. 20.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 539
decrease. Thus, “on account of the agreement between the two,
(this is) so”, i.e. only the relevant points of similarity are to be
accepted, otherwise there can be no appropriateness of these two. The
resultant meaning is that there can be no relation of example and the
exemplified between two objects when the example proves the exem-
plified to possess contrary qualities.
Or (the word “ubhaya-sāmānyāt” may be explained as): On
account of the appropriateness of the two examples of the sun and so
on, (i.e. the sun and water, and the ether and pot).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
As before, they interpret the example in a different way Hence
the sūtra: “(There is a common point between the example and the
exemplified, viz. their) participation in increase and decrease, owing
to being included within, on account of (such an) agreement between
the two, (it is) thus: (i.e. the comparison holds good)”. That is,
just as the reflected image of the sun, being inside the sheet of water,
participates in all the qualities of water, viz. increases and decreases
when water does so and so on, but the real sun does not do so, so
Brahman, when within, i.e connected with the limiting adjuncts, such
as the body and so on, participates in their growth and the like, but real
Brahman never does so ¹
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
They take this sūtra and the next one as constituting one sūtra.²
Interpretation same.
Baladeva
Interpretation different, viz. “(The above simile of the sun and
water holds good, though not in its primary sense, yet in its secondary
sense of) participating in increase (i.e. greatness) and decrease (i.e.
smallness), (i.e. just as the sun participates in increase, i.e. is a large
substance untouched by the limitations of water and so on, while
the images of the sun participate in decrease, i.e. are limited by the
conditions and variations of water, so the Lord participates in great-
ness, i.e. is great and independent, while the individual soul participates
1 Ś.B. 3.2.20, pp. 729-730; Bh. B 3.2 31, pp 167-168.
2 Śrī. B. 3.2.20, p. 234, Part 2; ŚK. B. 3 2.20, p. 250, Part 9.
5

540 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3 2. 21,
ADH. 5 ]
in smallness, i.e is small and dependent,—this is what is meant to be
illustrated by the simile), on account of being included within, (i.e.
because the purport of Scripture is fulfilled by this mode of explana-
tion,—everything is contained in it), on account of the agreement
between the two (this is) so, (i.e the comparison holds good)”.¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (end)
SŪTRA 21
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF OBSERVATION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And because in ordinary experience, (comparisons like): ‘A lion-
like boy’² are found.
Vedānta-kaustubha
And because in ordinary life, expressions like ‘A lion-like boy’
and so on are found, this is “so”, i.e. the attribute which is common
to the example and the exemplified is to be understood as the relevant
portion here. Hence it is established that Brahman is possessed of a
two-fold characteristic.
Here ends the section entitled “Possessed of two-fold charac-
teristics” (5).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz. “And because it is seen (i.e. declared
by Scripture that Brahman enters within the body)”.³
¹ G.B. 3.2.20, pp. 69-70, Chap. 3.
² The whole point is that when one thing is compared to another, that does
not imply that the two must be similar in all respects, but only that they are so
in some intended points. E.g. when a boy is compared to a lion that evidently
does not mean that he has four feet, thirst for blood, etc. like the lion, but
simply that he is as brave as the lion. Hence only this point, viz. braveness
is to be taken into account here. Similar is the case with Brahman and the
sun.
³ Ś.B. 3.2.21, p. 730; Bh. B. 3.2.22, p. 168.
5B

[sū. 3. 2 22.
adh. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 541
Adhikaraṇa 6: The section entitled "The so-
muchness resulting from what has been pre-
viously declared". (Sūtras 22-30)
SŪTRA 22
"FOR (THE TEXT) DENIES THE SO-MUCHNESS RESULTING FROM
WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DECLARED, AND AFTER THAT SPEAKS
(OF BRAHMAN AS LIMITLESS) ONCE MORE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
On the doubt, viz whether the text: "Not so, not so" (Bṛh.
2 3 6 ¹) denies the corporeal and the incorporeal forms, mentioned
previously in the passage "There are, verily, two forms of Brahman,
the corporeal and incorporeal" (Bṛh. 2.3.1 ²), or denies simply Brah-
man's so-muchness resulting from His connection with the previously
mentioned forms---the suggestion being that it denies the forms of
Brahman—we reply :
It "denies" only "the so-muchness resulting from what has been
previously mentioned". "After that," "once more" ³ the concluding
portion of the text says: "For there is nothing higher than this—
hence (it is called) 'not so' " (Bṛh. 2 3.6 ⁴)
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been stated above that Brahman is possessed of a two-fold
characteristic. Now the world is real, the world which consists of the
sentient and the non-sentient, which is not known through any other
means of knowledge, which is knowable from Scripture alone as a
form of Brahman on account of having Brahman for its soul, and which
is not deniable by such texts like: 'This is not a form of Brahman.'
Now, it may be thought that Brahman, who possesses the world as
His form and is endowed with infinite, inconceivable, auspicious
1 Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.
2 Op. cit. This text occurs in Maitrī 6.3 as well.
3 The word "bhūyaḥ" may mean both 'once more' and 'something
more'. It is not clear in which sense precisely Nimbārka understands it.
Śrīnivāsa gives both the meanings, see V.K. below.
4 Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.