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

[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.

[sū. 3. 2. 22.
542 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.]
qualities and powers, becomes limited owing to His connection with
the limited world. The author here denies this.
In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, having begun thus: "There are, verily,
two forms of Brahman, the corporeal and the incorporeal" (Bṛh
2 3.1), and having exhibited the particular forms of saffron-colour
and the rest thus: "The form of this person, verily, is like the saffron-
colour" (Bṛh. 2 3.6), the text goes on to record: "Hence, now, there
is the teaching: 'Not so, not so'" (Bṛh 2.3.6) Among these, the
corporeal, 1 e. the three elements fire, water and food, the incorporeal,
i.e. the two elements air and ether ¹; as well as the particular forms of
the saffron-colour and the rest ² have been mentioned before. Here the
doubt is whether the text. "Not so, not so" (Bṛh. 2 3 6) denies the
above-mentioned group of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms of
Brahman, or denies Brahman's so-muchness, resulting from His posses-
sion of the above-mentioned group of the corporeal and the incorporeal
forms. Here on the suggestion: It denies the group of the corporeal and
the incorporeal forms,—we reply: The text. "Not so, not so" "denies"
Brahman's so-muchness, resulting from His connection with those
corporeal and incorporeal forms which have been mentioned
previously. The word "for" shows that no things, sentient and non-
sentient, are capable of being denied—things which, on account of
having Brahman for their soul, are His forms, as established by
hundreds of scriptural passages, such as: "There are, verily, two
forms of Brahman, the corporeal and the incorporeal" (Bṛh. 2.3.1),
"Everything has that for its soul" (Chānd. 6.8.7; 6 9.4, etc.), "All
this, verily, is Brahman" (Chānd. 3.14.1), "By proving the enjoyer,
the object enjoyed and the Mover, all has been said. This is the three-
fold Brahman" (Śvet. 1.12) and so on. The phrase: "And after that
speaks once more" shows that Brahman is not limited by so-muchness.
That is, "after that" or after denying the so-muchness of Brahman,
"once more", i.e. again, the concluding portion of the text "speaks"
of Brahman as not limited by so-muchness.
Or else (an alternative explanation): the concluding portion of the
text speaks of something more than the previously mentioned corporeal
and incorporeal forms thus: "For there is nothing higher than it,
hence (it is called) 'not so'. "Now (its) name is 'the real of the real'.
¹ Vide Bṛh 2 3.2-3. ² Vide Bṛh 2.3.6

[SŪ 3. 2. 22.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 543
The vital-breaths, verily, are real. It is their real" (Brh. 2.3.6).
Its meaning is as follows: It is not to be said that the real nature of
Brahman is not other 'than it', i.e. than what has been mentioned
above. Brahman is higher than it, unlimited by so-muchness,
without an equal or a superior. There is also a 'name' for
Brahman, the highest of all. The same text states it thus:
'the real of the real'. Anticipating the enquiry: The real of which
reals? the text says: 'The vital-breaths, verily, are real; it is their
real'. 'The vital breaths' are the individual souls having the vital-
breaths, and they do not, like the ether and the rest, undergo any
change of nature at the time of creation, hence they are 'real'. Just
as the Vedas, though eternal, arise from Brahman, in accordance
with the maxim of a person who was asleep but has arisen now,¹
He being the cause of all,—so the individual souls, too, being under the
influence of karmas, come to have births, etc., i. e. undergo changes
in the form of contraction or expansion of their knowledge. But the
Supreme Brahman is not subject to any such changes. For this
reason, and also because He is the whole, He is the real of them too,—
this is the sense. For this very reason, Scripture says: "The eternal
among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious" (Katha. 5.13;
Śvet. 6.13).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation diametrically opposed. The question is, what
exactly is denied by the text "Not so, not so". Does it deny the two
forms of Brahman merely, or also Brahman Himself possessing those
forms? It may be suggested: As none among these is specially men-
tioned as the object of negation here, so both these are negated. The
term 'not so' is repeated twice, which also seems to imply that there
are two objects of negation, the universe and Brahman. Or, Brahman
alone is negatived here, since it being beyond the eyes and the mind,
may very well be non-existent.
The answer to this view is as follows: The two-fold negation of
the forms of Brahman and Brahman Himself is not possible. Negation
implies something positive and existent on the basis of which the
thing is set at naught, e.g. the snake is denied to be in the rope and so
¹ Vide V K. 1.3.28.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 22.
544 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.]
on. Hence absolute and universal negation is impossible and meaning-
less. Therefore, Brahman cannot be negatived As such the text
“Not so, not so” denies only the two previously mentioned corporeal
and incorporeal forms of Brahman and thereby depicts the real nature
of Brahman, viz. His absolute freedom from all differences. If
it be said: Why should Scripture first designate these forms and then
deny them?—the answer is that Scripture never actually proves that
Brahman possesses these forms, but simply mentions them as the views
of the ignorant for the purpose of showing their hollowness later on.
Moreover, the repetition of the words ‘not so’ simply refers to the two
forms separately. Thus according to Śaṃkara, there are two alter-
native explanations of the sūtra
(1) Having first designated Brahman as “Not so, not so”, the
text goes on to say once more: “There is nothing higher
than it, hence (it is called) ‘Not so’ ”.
(2) (Or) there is no better designation of Brahman's real
nature than the text: “Not so”; and the text declares
something more, viz the name of Brahman.¹
Rāmānuja
Interpretation same, but he does not begin a new adhikarana
here, but continues the same adhikaraṇa up to sūtra 25.
Bhāskara
He also does not begin a new adhikarana here, but continues the
same topic of the meditation on Brahman in His aspect of non-
difference, as pure existence and consciousness. According to Him
in the text: “Not so, not so”, the first ‘not so’ denies the corporeal
and the incorporeal forms of Brahman, i.e. His form as the elements;
while the second ‘not so’ denies His Vāsanā-maya form, i.e His form
as the individual soul. Thus this text designates the pure, non-
differenced form of Brahman, but by no means proves the non-existence
of the world. Hence the sūtra: (“The text) denies the so-muchness
of the topic of discussion (viz. Brahman) after that speaks (of Brah-
man) once more (as the Highest Being)”.²
1 Ś.B. 3 2.22, pp. 737 ff. 2 Bh B. 3.2.23, p. 169

[sū. 3. 2. 23-24.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 545
SŪTRA 23
“THAT (VIZ BRAHMAN IS) UNMANIFEST, FOR SCRIPTURE STATES.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The scriptural text: “He is not apprehended by the eye, nor by
speech” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8 ¹) and so on, states that Brahman is “Un-
manifest”.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author points out that Brahman, immanent in the corporeal
and the rest, yet transcendent, is not apprehended by the ordinary
sense-organs.
“That,” i.e. Brahman, is “Unmanifest”, “for” Scripture “states” :
“His form is not present to vision, no one whosoever sees Him with
the eye” (Kaṭha. 6.9 ; Śvet. 4.20), “He is not apprehended by the eye,
nor by speech” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8) and so on.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Like Nimbārka, he also holds that Brahman is not perceivable
by the ordinary sense-organs; although unlike Nimbārka he holds
here, as before, that Brahman has no corporeal and incorporeal
forms.²
Baladeva
He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself.
——————
SŪTRA 24
“AND (BRAHMAN IS REVEALED) IN PERFECT MEDITATION, ON
ACCOUNT OF PERCEPTION (I E. SCRIPTURE) AND INFERENCE (I.E.
(SMṚTI).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
But Brahman is revealed in loving devotion, i.e. in meditation,
in accordance with the following scriptural and Smṛti texts, viz.
“He, with his nature purified through the clarification of the

¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B ² Ś.B. 3.2.23, p. 741.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 24
546 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.]
knowledge of Brahman, perceives, meditating, him who is without
parts" (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8 ¹), '"But through exclusive devotion, I may
be known thus, O Arjuna, and perceived in truth, and entered, O
conqueror of enemies!"' (Gītā 11.54 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Apprehending the objection, viz. This view, surely, is inconsistent
with texts like: '"O, the self is to be seen"' (Bṛh. 2.4.5; 4.5.6) and
so on, the author points out that if an earnest effort be made by
virtuous men who follow Scripture and are desirous of a direct vision
of Him, then He becomes manifest to them.
The word "and" implies possibility. Brahman becomes manifest
"in perfect meditation", i. e. in loving devotion or meditation. And
this is known "from perception and inference", i.e. from Scripture
and Smṛti. Compare scriptural texts like: "He is attainable only
by him whom he chooses To him he reveals his own person"
(Kaṭha. 2.23; Muṇḍ. 3.2.3), "He, with his nature purified through
the clarification of the knowledge of Brahman, perceives, meditating,
him who is without parts" (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8); and Smṛti texts like:
'"But through exclusive devotion, I may be known thus, O Arjuna,
and perceived in truth, and entered, O conqueror of enemies!"'
(Gītā 11.54). "He whom the Yogins ³, — sleepless, with subdued
breath, with contented minds, with restrained sense-organs, — see as
light, obeisance to Him, whose self is Yoga" (Mahā. 12.1642 ⁴),
"The Yogins see him, the lord, the eternal" and so on.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Reading slightly different, viz. he adds a "ca" after "api".⁵
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.
² R, B.
³ A Yuñjāna is a Brahmin, one who by religious exercise called Yoga
endeavours to obtain union with the Lord.
⁴ P. 423, lines 18-19, vol. 3, Asiatic Society ed. This edition and the
Vaṅgavāsī ed. (p. 1420, col. 2, line 5) read "samttvasthāḥ" and "sattvasthāḥ"
respectively in place of "saṁtuṣṭāḥ".
⁵ Ś.B. 3.2.24, p. 741.

[sū. 3. 2. 25.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 547
Baladeva
He takes this sūtra too as forming an adhikarana by itself
Interpretation same.
SŪTRA 25
"AND AS IN THE CASE OF LIGHT AND THE REST, (THERE IS) NON-
DIFFERENCE (I.E THE CASE OF BRAHMAN IS SIMILAR TO THE CASE
OF LIGHT AND THE REST), AND (BRAHMAN'S) MANIFESTATION
(TAKES PLACE) THROUGH REPETITION WITH REGARD TO ACT (I.E.
THE MEANS)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Just as there is manifestation of the sun, fire and the like through
the repetition of the means resorted to by those who long for them, so
there is "non-difference" in the case of Brahman too, i.e. there is
"manifestation" of Brahman.¹ The sense is that the direct vision
of Brahman results from the incessant repetition of the sādhanas or
the means consisting in perfect meditation.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. To say that Brahman becomes manifest
in perfect meditation only does not stand to reason ; for why should
not everyone equally see Brahman who is the soul of all and all-
pervading ?—the author replies :
The light of the sun is within the reach of all, yet the sun mani-
fests itself "through the repetition with regard to act", i.e. through
the repeated mutterings of sacred formulæ and so on by Kunti,
Yudhiṣṭhira and the like; the fire is within the reach of all, yet it
manifests itself "through the repetition with regard to act", i.e. through
the repeated churning and the like by the twice-born; and gold is
available only "through the repetition with regard to act", i.e. through
repeated searching and so on. The case of Brahman too is "non-
different" or similar. That is, Brahman, though available by all,
manifests Himself to those alone who are desirous of salvation and
meditate on Him incessantly.
1 The last portion of the sentence: "Brahma-prakāśo bhavati" is omitted
by C.S.S. ed., p. 55.

[SŪ 3. 2 25.
548 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.]
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
Interpretation absolutely different, viz. “And as in the case of
light and the rest, there is non-difference (between Brahman and the
individual soul), and the light (viz. Brahman) (appears manifold)
in work (i e. through its connection with the limiting adjuncts), on
account of repetition (i.e. the repeated declaration of Scripture)”.
That is, in the preceding sūtra it has been pointed out that Brahman
manifests itself in profound meditation This seems to suggest that
there is a difference between Brahman, the object worshipped, and
the individual soul, the worshipper. This sūtra controverts the sug-
gestion by pointing out that just as the rays of the sun appear crooked,
straight and so on in accordance with the shape and position of the
fingers and the like through which they are passing, but the real sun
remains what it is, so Brahman appears dual through the limiting
adjunct of meditation and so on, but is really one and without a second.
That is, for the purpose of meditation, a distinction is made between
Brahman and the individual soul, but there is no real difference between
them.¹
Rāmānuja
This is sūtra 24 in his commentary.
Interpretation different. Here he continues the problem, viz.
What is exactly denied by the text: “Not so, not so” (Bṛh. 2.3.6).
The sūtra means, according to him: “Like light (i.e. knowledge) and
so on, there is non-difference, (i.e. just as knowledge, bliss and the
like constitute the very nature of Brahman, so do His corporeal and
incorporeal forms), and (just as) light (i.e knowledge) (and bliss and
the like are known to be constituting the very nature of Brahman)
from the repetition with regard to act, (i.e. from the repeated practice
of devout meditation), (so are His corporeal and incorporeal forms)”.
That is, Vāmadeva and others, who obtained a direct vision of the Lord,
perceived Him as knowledge and bliss and so on, just as they perceived
Him also as possessed of the corporeal and incorporeal forms. And, just
as Vāmadeva and others perceived Him as knowledge and bliss and so
on through the repeated practice of meditation, so they perceived Him
¹ Ś.B. 3.2.25, p. 742.

[sū. 3. 2. 25.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 549
as possessed of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms through the
repeated practice of meditation. Hence the above text "Not so, not
so" denies only the so-muchness of Brahman, but not His corporeal
and incorporeal forms.¹
Bhāskara
This is sūtra 26 in his commentary. He interprets the first
portion of the sūtra like Śaṁkara, the last portion like Nimbārka:
although he gives two alternative interpretations of the word "kar-
maṇi". "(If it be said that the Highest Self being unmanifest, beyond
the senses and obtainable through meditation only, must be different
from the individual soul,—we reply.) Like light and the rest, there
is non-difference also (between Brahman and the individual soul),
and the manifestation (of Brahman, which brings about this non-
difference, arises) from the repetition (i.e. the repetition of meditation)
with regard to act (i e. with regard to the object to be worshipped, viz.
Brahman) (Or an alternative explanation ) from the repetition with
regard to act (i.e. with regard to meditation)" ²
Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 24 in his commentary. Interpretation different.
"And as in the case of light (viz. knowledge) and so on (there is)
non-difference, and the manifestation (of Brahman takes place)
through the repetition with regard to act, (i.e those who attain a
direct vision of the Lord, come to have lordship and the rest like Him,
just as they come to have knowledge, bliss and the rest like Him,—
there is no difference between their attaining knowledge, bliss and the
rest like the Lord and attaining lordship and so on like Him)." ³
Baladeva
He breaks this sūtra into two different sūtras thus: "Prakāśādi-
vac ca vaiśeṣyāt" (sūtra 25), "Prakāśaś ca karmaṇy abhyāsāt"
(sūtra 26). Interpretation of the first portion entirely different.
Sūtra 25.—Here the word "na" is to be supplied, according to
Him, from sūtra 19. Hence the sutra: "And (the Lord is) not like
light (i.e. fire) and the rest, for (there are) no (such) distinctions (in

¹ Śrī B. 3.2.24, p 238, Part 2.
² Bh. B. 3 2.26 (written as 3.2.25), pp. 169-170.
³ Śk. B. 3.2.24, pp. 257-258, Part 9.

550 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 26.
ADH. 6.]
Him)”. That is, fire has two states, subtle and gross, and it is
unmanifest in its subtle state, but becomes manifest in its gross state.
Such is not the case with the Lord, i.e. it is not that the Lord is un-
manifest in His subtle state, but becomes manifest in His gross state,—
for, in Him there is no such distinction of subtle and gross. Hence
the manifestation of the Lord does not depend on any such states,
but on the love and devotion of the devotee.¹
Sūtra 26.—“And (if it be objected that it is by no means a
universal rule that whoever loves God sees Him, we reply:) the mani-
festation (of the Lord to the devotee is brought about) through the
repetition with regard to act (i e through the repeated practice of
meditation).” That is, mere love is of no avail, but the constant
repetition of the acts of meditation, etc. is necessary.²
SŪTRA 26
“HENCE (THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL ATTAINS SIMILARITY) WITH THE
INFINITE, FOR THUS (IS) THE INDICATION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
When the individual soul directly intuits Brahman, it becomes
similar to Him, in accordance with the text “When the seer sees the
golden-coloured creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahmā,
then the wise men, having discarded merit and demerit attains the
highest equality” (Muṇḍ. 3.1 3 ³).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Incidentally, the author is indicating the fruit of the direct
vision of Brahman.
“Hence,” i.e. through the manifestation or the direct vision of
Brahman, the individual soul becomes similar to the Infinite, i.e. to
Brahman, the Highest Person, “for thus (is) the indication”,
i e. because there is a text intimating this, viz “When the seer sees
the golden-coloured creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of
¹ G B. 3.2.25, p. 80, Chap. 3.
² Op. cit, 3.2.26, p. 81, Chap. 3.
2 Not quoted by others.

[sū. 3. 2. 26
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 551
Brahmā, then the wise man, having discarded merit and demerit,
attains the highest equality” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.1 3).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 27 in Bhāskara’s commentary Interpretation
different, viz “Hence (i.e because the distinction between Brahman
and the individual soul is due to nescience, while the absolute oneness
of Brahman is the ultimate truth), (the individual soul can get rid
of nescience and become one) with the Infinite (i.e. Brahman), for this
(is) the indication”.¹
Rāmānuja
This is sūtra 25 in his commentary. Interpretation different,
viz. “Hence (i.e on account of the above reasons), (it is proved that
Brahman is qualified) by infinite (auspicious qualities), for thus (i.e.
this being so), the mark (i.e. the two-fold characteristics of Brahman)
(is established)”.² According to Rāmānuja, the section about the
two-fold characteristics of Brahman ends here, while according to
Nimbārka, as we have seen, it ends with sūtra 21.
Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 25 in his commentary. Interpretation different,—
very similar to that of Rāmānuja: “Hence (i.e. because the devotees
of Brahman, who have attained similarity with Him, are endowed
with knowledge, bliss, supreme lordship and the like), (it is proved
that Brahman has connection) with infinite (auspicious qualities) for
thus (i.e this being so), the mark (i.e. two-fold characteristics of
Brahman) (is established) ”.³
Baladeva
This is sūtra 27 in his commentary. Interpretation different,
viz. “Hence (the direct vision of the Lord is possible) through (the
grace of) the Infinite (viz. Brahman) for thus (is) the indication”.

¹ Ś.B. 3.2.26, p. 743; Bh. B. 3.2.27 (written as 3.2.26), p. 170.
² Śrī B. 3.2.25, p. 238, Part 2.
³ Śk. B. 3.2.25, p. 258, Part 9.