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

[SŪ. 3. 3. 33.
ADH. 15.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 647
happiness ¹, without measure, without inside and without outside.
It consumes nothing whatsoever ² Verily, O Gārgī, at the com-
mand of this Imperishable the sun and the moon stand held apart’ ’
(Bṛh. 3.8.8-9 ³). In the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda
too beginning: “Now, the higher is that whereby the Imperishable is
apprehended” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.5), it is said: “That which is invisible,
intangible, without family, without caste, without eye, without ear,
without hands and feet” (Muṇḍ. 1 1 6 ⁴).
Here the doubt is, whether the attributes, viz. non-grossness,
non-atomicity, invisibility, intangibility and the rest, which belong
to Brahman, denoted by the word ‘Imperishable’, which are mentioned
in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the text of the followers of the Atharva-
veda, and which establish the difference of Brahman from the sentient
and the non-sentient,—are to be inserted in all the meditations on
Brahman or not. On the suggestion, viz. that they are not to be
inserted, there being no purpose for that,—
(We reply.) There is a purpose. In those meditations on
Brahman too, it is Brahman, different from the sentient and the
non-sentient, that is the object to be attained by the attainers,—so
says (the author): “But there is the comprehension of the conceptions
of the Imperishable”. “The Imperishable” is Brahman. There
should be the “comprehension”, i.e. inclusion, of the “conceptions”
of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest also, connected with Him,
in all the meditations on Brahman, in order that we may understand
¹ Correct quotation : “amukham” (=without mouth) and not “asukham”.
Vide Bṛh. 3.3.8, p. 169.
² Omitted portion: “None whatsoever consumes it”.
³ Vide the dialogue between Gārgī and Yājñavalkya, Bṛh. 3.8. Gārgī
put two questions to Yājñavalkya: First: “That which is above the sky, that
which is beneath the earth, that which is between these two, sky and earth, that
which people call the past, the present and the future,—across what is that woven,
warp and woof ?” (Bṛh. 3.8.4). Answer: “That, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call
the Imperishable”, etc.
⁴ Vide Muṇḍ. 1 1. Brahmā taught this knowledge of Brahman to his
eldest son Atharva, who taught it to Aṅgir, who taught it to Bhāradvāja Satya-
vāha, who taught it to Aṅgiras. Then, Śaunaka, a great householder approached
Aṅgiras with the question: “Sir ! Through knowing which everything else
becomes known ?” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.3). Thereupon Aṅgiras proceeded to teach him
two kinds of knowledge, higher (or parā) and lower (or aparā). The lower so is
the knowledge of the four Vedas with their subsidiary parts, the higher is the
knowledge whereby the Imperishable is apprehended.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 33.
648 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15.]
His real nature as different from the sentient and the non-sentient.
That His essential attributes, like bliss and the rest, are to be so
included has been stated under the aphorism: "Bliss and the rest
belonging to the chief" (Br. Sū. 3.3.11). Similarly, in order that the
illusory notion that His bliss is similar to other kinds of blisses may
be set at naught,¹ it is proper that the attributes of non-grossness,
non-atomicity and the rest should be included everywhere. Why?
"On account of generality and on account of being that", that is,
because in all meditations on Brahman, the real nature of the object
to be meditated on, which is different from the sentient and the non-
sentient and is the object to be attained, remains the same; also
because those attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest
form essential parts of an investigation into the nature of the Chief,
as they follow Him.
An instance illustrating that the attributes (or the secondary
matters) follow the chief (or the primary matter) is given in the phrase:
"As in the case of what belongs to the Upasad". That is, just as in
the Jāmadagnya-ahīna sacrifice, in which the upasad offerings are
to consist of puradāś, enjoined in the text: "Jamadagni, desiring
prosperity, sacrificed with the four-nightly rite . . . .² The sacrificial
cakes become the upasad offerings" (Tait. Saṁ. 7.1.9 ³), the sacred
formulæ read in the Sāma-veda, like "May the fire promote the
sacrifice" (Tāṇḍ. Br. 7.1.9) and so on, are recited by the Adhvaryyu
in the low accent of the Yajur-veda, as they follow the principal
matter. "That has been said", i. e. said by Jaimini, viz. "If there
be opposition between the subsidiary and the primary, because of
the subserviency of that (viz. of the subsidiary to the primary)".
(Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.9.)
¹ That is, to know a thing is to know its peculiar attributes which distin-
guish it from other objects. Now, bliss and the rest do not constitute the ex-
clusive attributes of Brahman, since they are the attributes of the individual
souls as well. Hence in order that the bliss and so on of Brahman may not
be confused with the bliss and the rest of the individual soul, it is necessary
to include in all meditations on Brahman the further attributes of non-grossness,
non-atomicity and the rest, which belong to Brahman exclusively, over and
above the attributes of bliss and so on.
² Omitted portion: "He prospered therein and the two descendants of
Jamadagni are not found to be grey-haired. He who knowing thus offers the
four-nightly rite comes to have that prosperity".
³ P. 251, line 17, vol. 2.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 34.
ADH. 15 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 649
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation of "sāmānya-tad-bhāvābhyām" different, viz.
"On account of the equality (i.e because all texts equally establish
Brahman as such, i e. as different from the Universe) and on account
of that object (viz Brahman, being the object of all texts)' 1
SŪTRA 34
"SO MUCH (I E ONLY THESE ATTRIBUTES) (ARE TO BE INCLUDED
EVERYWHERE), ON ACCOUNT OF REFLECTION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Since Brahman, the best of all, is meditated on through (i.e. as
possessed of) bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so
on, bliss and the rest are to be included everywhere Other attributes
like having all works and the like, though following the Chief (viz.
Brahman) are to be comprised (only) where mentioned.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. In accordance with the stated maxim 2,
it follows that there is the inclusion everywhere of those attributes as
well, which are stated in the scriptural text: "Having all works,
having all odours, having all tastes" (Chānd. 3.14.2, 4), as they
too follow the Chief—(the author) says: "So much", i.e. bliss and
the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on 3, are included
in all the meditations on Brahman. Why? "On account of reflec-
tion"; that is, "the reflection" on Brahman, different from the
1 Ś.B. 3.3.33, p. 811; Bh. B. 3.3.33, p. 188.
2 Viz. that attributes or secondary matters follow their substratum or the
primary matter.
3 Which differentiate such bliss, etc. from ordinary bliss, etc. of the indivi-
dual souls.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 34.
650 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15.]
sentient and the non-sentient, is preceded by the differentiation of
Him from others by means of the group of attributes like bliss and
the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on,—on account of
such a reflection on Him, i.e. meditation on Him with thought directed
toward Him. (The attributes like) having all works and so on, though
following the chief, are suitable in those place alone where they are
mentioned, there being no special purpose for their inclusion every-
where. Hence it is established that 'there is the comprehension of the
conceptions of the Imperishable' (Br Sū 3.3.33).
Here ends the section entitled "The conception of the Imperishable".
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
Bhāskara reads "īṣat". They take this sūtra as constituting
an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the
two passages in the Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad (Śvet. 4 6) and in the Kaṭha-
upaniṣad (Kaṭha. 3.1) refer to the same vidyā. The answer is that they
are the same "on account of so much (viz. the number two) being
recorded". That is, in both the passages the Lord and the individual
soul are designated as the objects to be known. As such, both
constitute the same vidyā.¹
Baladeva
Interpretation same, only the interpretation of the word
"āmananāt" different, viz. "On account of scriptural declaration ².
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.34, pp. 814; Bh. B. 3.3.34, p. 188.
² G.B. 3.3.35.

[Sū. 3. 3. 35.
ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 651
Adhikaraṇa 16: The section entitled "Being
within". (Sūtras 35-37)
SŪTRA 35
"IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (THE FORMER REPLY WHICH DESCRIBES
THE SELF AS) WITHIN (SPEAKS) OF ONE'S OWN SELF AS POSSESSED
OF THE GROUP OF ELEMENTS, OTHERWISE (THERE IS) UNACCOUNT-
ABLENESS OF DIFFERENCE, (WE REPLY:) NO, AS IN THE CASE
OF ANOTHER TEACHING."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, to the question of
Uṣasta, viz. " 'He who is Brahman manifest and not visible, he who
is the soul within all, explain him to me' " (Bṛh. 3.4.1 ¹), the answer
given was: ' "He who breathes in with the in-breath is your soul
which is within all" ' (Bṛh. 3.4.1. ²). Here, the phrase: " 'He is your
soul, which is within all", teaches something "within", i.e. teaches
the individual soul as within the body and the rest, it alone being
the cause of breathing in and breathing out. In the very same
manner, to the question of Kahola, viz. ' "He who alone is Brahman,
manifest and not invisible, he who is the soul within all, explain
him to me" ' (Bṛh 2.5.1.³), the answer given was: ' "He who passes
beyond hunger and thirst, beyond grief, delusion, old age, death" '
(Bṛh. 3.5.1⁴). Here, on the other hand, the text teaches the Highest
Self,—as such the vidyās are different, otherwise the difference of the
answers is unaccountable,—
(We reply:) "No", since in both the cases, the questions and
the answers refer to the Primary Being alone (viz. Brahman). Just
as in the Sad-vidyā,⁵ it is found that with a view to demonstrating

¹ Ś, R, Śk. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
³ R, Śk. ⁴ Ś, Bh, Śk.
⁵ Sad-vidyā or the doctrine of the Existent or the True, taught to Śveta-
ketu by Āruṇi, vide Chānd. 6 (whole).
The story begins. Śvetaketu became a student of sacred knowledge at the
request of his father Āruṇi, and after having studied the Vedas for twelve years,
returned home, conceited, thinking himself very learned. Thereupon his father
asked him whether he had asked for the instruction whereby the unheard be-
comes heard, the unthought thought, the unknown known. As Śvetaketu
12

[SŪ. 3. 3. 35.
652 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 16.]
the particular attributes of Brahman, there is repetition of the question:
‘“Sir, you yourself tell me that”’ (Chānd. 6.1.7 ¹), ‘“Sir, inform
me once more”’ (Chānd. 6.5.4 ; 6.6 5, etc.²), as well as of the answer:
‘“That which is the finest essence,—all this has that for its soul”’
(Chānd. 6.8.7, etc.³), so here too the repetition of question and answer—
with a view to demonstrating that the object to be known passes
beyond hunger and so on—is appropriate.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the previous section, concerned with the inclusion of the
attributes of non-grossness and the rest, it has been shown that the
object to be known is different from other objects. With a view to
confirming this, (the author), by showing now the identity of vidyās
in the two texts to be mentioned hereafter, refutes the illusory notion
that there are two realities as the thing to be known.
In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Uṣasta asked Yājñavalkya: ‘“He who
is Brahman, manifest and not invisible, he who is the soul within all,
explain him to me”’ (Bṛh. 3.4.1) The reply to it was: ‘“He who
breathes in with the in-breath is your soul which is within all. He
who breathes out with the out-breath is your soul which is within all”’
(Bṛh. 3.4.1) and so on. Likewise, in the immediately following
section, to the question of Kahola, viz. ‘“He alone who is Brahman,
manifest and not invisible, he who is the self within all, explain him
to me”’ (Bṛh. 3.5.1), the answer was the following, beginning:
‘“He who passes beyond hunger and thirst, beyond grief, delusion,
old age, death,—forsooth having known such a self, the Brāhmaṇas
give up the desire for sons, desire for wealth”’, ending ‘“Aught else
is wretched”’ (Bṛh. 3 5.1).
Here, the doubt is as to whether the questions and answers in the
two cases refer to two vidyās or to one. Here (the author) having
propounded the prima facie view, rejects it thus: “If it be objected
was not acquainted with that doctrine Āruṇi taught him how from the knowledge
of the cause, all its effects can be known. Next he proceeded to teach him process
of creation from the Sat. (Chānd. 6.2–6.7). Finally, he taught him the great
doctrine of “Thou art that” in various ways (Chānd. 6.8–6.16). Each time
Śvetaketu asked to be taught once more (altogether nine times) and in answer
Āruṇi taught him each time by means of a new illustration.
¹ R. ² Ś, R. ³ Ś, R.
12B

[Sū. 3. 3. 35.
ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 653
that (the former reply which describes the self as) within (speaks)
of one’s own self possessed of the group of elements, otherwise there is
unaccountableness of difference, (we reply:) no". If it be objected:
The reply, viz. ' "He who breaths in with the in-breath " ' (Bṛh. 3.4.1),
given to the question of Uṣasta, viz. ' " He who is the self within all ' "
(Bṛh. 3.4.1), and referring to something "within", should be known to
be referring to "one's own self possessed of the group of elements",¹
i e. to the individual soul, since the individual soul being the inner soul
of all, viz. of the body, the sense-organs, the mind, the intellect and so
on, can appropriately be the inner soul of all. Consequently, the
question of Kahola and the answer to it refer to the Highest Self,
the primary inner soul, since the Highest Self alone is devoid of
hunger and the rest. Thus owing to the difference of form, the
questions and answers refer to two vidyās. "Otherwise," i.e. if
the vidyās be taken to be identical on the ground that the questions
and answers refer to the Highest Self in both cases, the difference of
the answers is unaccountable,—
(We reply:) "no", i.e. there is no difference of vidyās, as the two
sets of questions and answers refer to the same form, viz. to the Highest
Self (equally). Thus, to begin with, the question of Uṣasta, viz. ' " He
who is manifest and not invisible Brahman, he who is the soul within
all, explain him to me " ' (Bṛh. 3 4.1) does indeed refer to the Highest
Self alone. It means: Reverend Yājñavalkya, he who is Brahman,
explain him to me. I am not asking about Brahman, consisting in
His own power (viz. pradhāna, which may also be called Brahman)
simply because of its connection with great attributes like existence and
the rest.² With this idea he said: 'Explain Brahman who is not
invisible and who is the soul'.³ The individual soul too is Brahman
because of its connection with the attribute of knowledge.⁴ I am not
¹ I.e. possessed of the body, etc., which are products of the elements.
² I.e. the word 'Brahman', meaning 'one possessed of greatness', may
figuratively denote pradhāna too owing to its connection with great attributes.
That a thing, though not great by nature, may yet be designated as great because
of having great attributes, is shown under V.K. 2.3.28.
³ Pradhāna is not 'not invisible', i.e. its evolutes are visible to all, while the
Lord is so to the freed only. Again, pradhāna is not 'soul', which the Lord
is. Hence these two epithets show that the word 'Brahman' does not mean
here pradhāna, but the Lord alone.
⁴ The individual soul, though atomic by nature, is said to be great because
of having great attributes. Vide V.K. 2.3.28.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 35.
654 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 16.]
asking about Brahman having such a mark. With this idea, he said,
'Explain Brahman who is manifest, who is the soul within all'.¹
But such a Brahman is none but the cause of the world, having the
stated marks, called the Highest Person. Thus it is known that the
question is concerned with the Supreme Brahman, in accordance with
the following scriptural and Smṛti texts: "The controller of matter
and soul, the Lord of the properties of matter" (Śvet. 6.16), "He is
your soul, the inner controller" (Bṛh. 3.7.3–23), "Entered within, the
ruler of men" (Tait. Ār. 3.11.1, 2²), "He who abiding within the earth
is other than the earth" (Bṛh. 3.7.3), "He who abiding within the soul
is other than the soul" (Śat. Br. 14, 6.7.30³), '"I transcend the perish-
able and am higher than even the imperishable. Hence I am celebrated
in the world and in the Veda as the Highest Person"' (Gītā 15 18),
'"He who sees me everywhere"' (Gītā 6.30), '"And I am situated in
the heart of all"' (Gītā 15 15) and so on.
The answer, viz. '"He who breathes in with the in-breath"'
(Bṛh. 3.4.1) too refers to the Highest Person alone, since the Highest
alone is the primary agent of in-breathing, in accordance with the
scriptural text: "For who would live, who would breathe, if there
were not this bliss in the ether" (Tait. 2.7).
That the last set of question and answer refers to the Highest
Self is admitted by the prima facie view as well.
There is repetition of question and answer for the sake of demon-
strating that the Highest Person, the cause of the breathing of all
breathing creatures, is beyond hunger and so on. (The author)
states a parallel instance: "As in the case of another teaching".
That is, just as under the same Sad-vidyā, which begins: '"You
are proud. Did you ask for that teaching"' (Chānd. 6.1.2), there is
repetition of the question thus: '"But you yourself, Sir, tell me that"'
(Chānd. 6.1.7), '"Sir, inform me once more"' (Chānd. 6.5.4, etc.);
and repetition of the answer as well, thus: '"That which is the finest
essence—all this has that for its soul"' (Chānd. 6.8.7, etc.)—with a
¹ The individual is not 'manifest' Brahman, i.e. it is not directly and actually
Brahman, but only figuratively, while the Lord is Brahman or great directly.
Again, the individual soul is not the 'soul within all', which the Lord is. Hence
these two epithets show that the word 'Brahman' here does not mean the
individual soul, but the Lord alone.
² P. 181.
³ P. 1074.

[sū. 3. 3. 35.
ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 655
view to demonstrating particular attributes in particular cases of one
and the same object to be known,—so is the case here.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
He breaks the sūtra into two separate sūtras thus:
“Antarā bhūta-grāma-vat svātmanaḥ” (sūtra 35).
“Anyathā bhedānupapattir iti cen nopadeśāntara-vat”
(sūtra 36).
Import and the conclusion reached are the same, only the literal
interpretation different. Thus, while according to Nimbārka the whole
portion “Antarā—bhedānupapatti” constitutes the prima facie view,
according to Śaṃkara, the portion “Antarā—svātmanaḥ” does not
state the prima facie view, but the view of the author, while the portion
“Anyathā bhedānupapattir” alone states the prima facie view. Thus
he interprets the portion: “Antarā—svātmanaḥ” (sūtra 35 in his
commentary) as follows.—“(Both the texts speak) of one’s own self
(viz. the Lord) (to be) within all, (hence these two selves must be
identical, otherwise the inner soul must become relative) as in the case
(of the body composed of the) group of elements”. That is, both the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka passages speak of a self which is within all. Now if
these two selves be different, we have to say that there are two
selves within all. But in that case neither can be said to be the inner
being absolutely, but only relatively, just as none of the five elements
which constitute the body can be said to be within another—i.e.
water within the earth and so on—absolutely or solely, but only
relatively so. Hence to avoid this conclusion we must hold that the
two selves are identical, i.e. the two passages refer to the same vidyā.
Śaṃkara gives an alternative explanation of the phrase: “bhūta-
grāma-vat”, viz. “as (another scriptural passage, viz. Śvet. 6.11
declares the one self to be within all) the group of (beings)”. Hence
here also, there must be only one self within all. This proves the
identity of the two selves and the consequent identity of vidyās.¹
Sūtra 36.—Like Nimbārka’s interpretation.

¹ Ś.B. 3.3.35, pp. 814-815.

656 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 35.
ADH. 16.]
Bhāskara
Interpretation diametrically opposed. He interprets the first
part of the sūtra like Śaṁkara, but arrives at a directly opposite
conclusion. Thus, like Nimbārka, according to him also the portion
"Antarā---bhedānupapatti" constitutes the prima facie view, the
rest the reply. Hence the prima facie view: "(The two passages in
the Bṛhadāraṇyaka refer to the same self, for on this view alone the
self which is designated as) within (can be the absolute inner self and
not relatively only), otherwise (the self would be) like the group of
elements none of which can be said to be within another absolutely).
(Hence there is) inappropriateness of difference, (i.e. the two passages
refer to the same self)".
Correct conclusion: "No, as in the case of the difference ('antarā')
of teaching". That is, just as there are two different teachings here,
so the objects taught by them too must be different. Or, an alter-
native explanation: "No, as in the case of another ('antarā')
teaching". That is, just as in the Chāndogya the nine repetitions of
the dictum: 'Thou art that' show that in every version the object
established is different, so here.¹
Baladeva
He breaks this sūtra into two different sūtras exactly after
Śaṁkara. Interpretation absolutely different. He begins a new
adhikaraṇa here (three sūtras) concerned with the topic of the identity
between the Lord and His city. Thus:
Sūtra 36.—"Within (the city of the Lord, viz. Saṁvyoma or the
great Ether), (things appear) like (things in) an elemental city ("bhūta-
grāma-vat") (i.e. in an ordinary city) (to the vision) of His own (i.e.
to the devotees chosen by the Lord)." That is, in the city of the
Lord, everything being a manifestation of the Lord is but the Lord
Himself, but they look like material objects to His devotees.²
Sūtra 37.—"If it be objected that otherwise (i.e. on the view
that there is no difference between the Lord and His city), there is
inappropriateness of difference (between the dweller and the resi-
dence), (we reply:), no, as in the case of another teaching." That is,
¹ Bh. B. 3.3.35, p. 189.
² G.B. 3.3.36, p. 174, Chap. 3. "Yatratyaṁ vastu-jātaṁ sarvaṁ brah-
mātmakam api pṛthivyādi-nirmita-vat sphurati."

[SŪ. 3. 3. 36.
ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 657
just as another text (Tait. 2.1) declares the Lord to be both
bliss and blissful, the attribute and the substratum of attributes, so
the Lord is both the dweller and the residence, i.e. is identical with
His city, yet dwells in the city. Everything is possible in His
case.¹
SŪTRA 36
“(THERE MUST BE) EXCHANGE (OF IDEAS), FOR (THE TWO TEXTS)
SPECIFY (THE SAME BRAHMAN), AS IN ANOTHER CASE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
An investigation into the Highest, distinguished from the
individual soul as the cause of the breathing of all breathing
creatures, is to be made by Kahola as by Usasta. Similarly, an
investigation into Him, distinguished from the individual soul as
beyond hunger and so on, is to be made by Uṣasta as by Kahola.
Thus, there is a mutual exchange of investigations. This being so,
Brahman becomes distinguished from the individual soul. Hence the
answers given by Yājñavalkya “specify”, in both cases, the same
soul of all as the object to be worshipped, just as in the Sad-vidyā
all the answers specify the same Brahman, the Existent.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. Let it be that in both the cases the questions
and the answers refer to the Primary Inner Soul of all. Still, the
vidyās do not become identical, a difference between them being
possible by reason of the fact that in the prior section the Primary
Inner Soul, characterized by the attribute of being the cause of the
breathing of all breathing creatures, is of one form as an object to be
known by Uṣasta; while in the subsequent section, the Primary Inner
Soul, characterized by the attribute of being beyond hunger and
so on, is of another form as an object to be known by Kahola,—(the
author) says:
¹ G.B. 3.3 37, p. 175, Chap. 3.

658 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 36.
ADH. 16.]
There is "exchange", i.e. inter-change, of the attributes of
being the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures and being
beyond hunger and so on. The object to be known by Uṣasta too
is the one Supreme Brahman, differentiated from the sentient by the
two distinguishing attributes. Similarly, the object to be known by
Kahola too is the same Brahman, "for", with a view to making it
known that the Highest Person, the soul of all and the object to
be worshipped, is different from the individual soul, endowed with
the attibutes of occupying a small place and so on,—the answers
given by Yājñavalkya "specify", i.e demonstrate, Brahman as differ-
ent from the individual soul by defining His attributes of being the
cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures and being beyond
hunger and so on. "As in another case." That is, just as in another
case, viz. in the case in the Sad-vidyā, by the repeated answers,
establishing diverse attributes, the same Brahman is specified as the
object to be known, but by reason of this difference of attributes,
He Himself does not become different, in those cases, as an object
to be worshipped,—so is the case here.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 37 in Śaṃkara's commentary.
They take this sūtra to be constituting an adhikarana by itself,
concerned with the question whether the Aitareya and Jābāla texts:
"I am he, he is I" (Ait. Ār. 2.2.4, 6), "You are I, I am you" mean
only that the individual soul is the Lord; or both that the individual
soul is the Lord and the Lord is the individual soul. The Prima
facie view is that here the transposition is to be understood in one
way only, viz. that the individual soul is the Lord,—since the lower
can become the higher,—but never that the Lord too is the individual
soul, since the Lord can never become the individual soul. The answer
is: "(The texts designate) exchange (i.e. mutual transposition of
the ideas of the individual soul and the Lord), for (they) specify
(this exchange expressly), as in other cases". That is, in the texts,
we must not only understand the individual soul to be the Lord,
but vice versa as well, seeing that the texts expressly say not only
"I am he", but also "He is I". If the transposition were meant
to be understood in one way alone, they would have stopped by

[sū. 3. 3. 37.
ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 659
saying "I am he". What the above passages aim at enjoining is
the meditation on the unity of the soul. Hence just as other texts
record the attributes of being the soul of all and so on for the purpose
of meditation, so the above texts record a mutual transposition of
the ideas of 'I' and 'He' for the same purpose.¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 38 in his commentary.
Here he concludes the topic of the identity between the Lord
and His city. Hence the sūtra: "For (texts like Brh. 1.4.15) specify
(that an) interchange (is possible between the Lord and His city),
like other (texts, e.g. Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī, etc.)". That is, the City
of Brahman is identical with Brahman Himself, hence an exchange
is possible between them, and the former is equally adorable like the
latter.²
SŪTRA 37
"FOR HE ALONE (IS THE OBJECT OF MEDITATIONS IN ALL THE
VERSIONS), THE TRUE AND THE REST (ARE INSERTED IN ALL THE
VERSIONS)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"He alone" who is denoted by the term 'true', and is mentioned
in the texts: "That divinity thought" (Chānd. 6.3.2 ³), "Light
(merges) in the highest divinity" (Chānd. 6.8.6 ⁴), is repeated in the
versions, such as: '"Just as, my dear, the bees prepare the honey"'
(Chānd. 6.9.1 ⁵) and so on. The very same (attributes of being) "the
true and the rest", mentioned in the first version thus: '"Everything
has that for its self, that is true"' (Chānd 6.8.7 ⁶), are inserted in all
other versions.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. In the Sad-vidyā too, there being a repe-
tition of question and answer, how is it ascertained that the object
to be meditated on is the same?—(the author) says:
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.37, pp. 816-817; Bh. B. 3.3.36 (written as 3.3.37), p. 189.
² G.B. 3.3.38, p. 176, Chap. 3. "Paramātmaiva loko lokaḥ paramātmeti."
³ R, ŚK. ⁴ R.
⁵ R. ⁶ R, ŚK.

660 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 37.
ADH. 16.]
“For he alone,” i.e. the Highest Divinity alone, denoted by the
term ‘existent’ and referred to in the passages: “That divinity
thought” (Chānd 6 3.2), “Light (merges) in the Highest Divinity”
(Chānd. 6.8.6), is repeated in the versions: ‘“Just as, my dear, the
bees prepare the honey”’ (Chānd. 6 9.1) and so on. The very same
(attributes of being) “the true” and so on, mentioned in the first
version: ‘“All this has that for its soul, that is true”’ (Chānd. 6.8.7),
are inserted in all the other versions. Hence in the Sad-vidyā, the
object to be worshipped is the same indeed. Thus it is established
that in both the cases the questions and the answers are concerned
with the same vidyā.
Here ends the section entitled “Being within” (16).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 38 in Śaṃkara’s commentary. They take this
sūtra too as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the
question whether the two Sad-vidyās (in Bṛh. 5.4 and Bṛh. 5.5)
constitute the same vidyā or two different vidyās. The answer is
that they are the same vidyā. They read “sā” (meaning vidyā)
instead of “sa” (meaning the Lord). Hence the sūtra: “For that
(viz. the same Sad-vidyā) alone (is recorded by the two texts), (hence
the attributes of) truth and so on (are to be comprehended in one act
of meditation)”.¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself.
Interpretation same.
Baladeva
This is sūtra 39 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as
constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with proving that
the attributes of the Lord are not unreal. Like Śaṃkara and Bhās-
kara, he reads “sā” (meaning the parā-śakti of the Lord). Hence
the sūtra: “She (viz. the parā-śakti of the Lord) alone is truth and the
rest”. That is, the attributes of the Lord like truth, omniscience
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.38, pp. 817–819; Bh. B. 3.3.37 (written as 3.3.38), p. 190.

[sū. 3. 3. 38.
ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 661
and so on, are the modifications of the parā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti
of the Lord. Hence they are real, constituting the essential nature
of the Lord, and not illusory.¹
Adhikarana 17: The section entitled "Desire".
(Sūtras 38–40)
SŪTRA 38
"(THE ATTRIBUTES OF HAVING TRUE) DESIRE AND SO ON (ARE
TO BE INSERTED) ELSEWHERE (I.E. IN THE BṚHADĀRAṆYAKA)
AND THERE (I.E. IN THE CHĀNDOGYA), ON ACCOUNT OF ABODE
AND SO ON."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the Chāndogya, in the text beginning: "Now, that which is
within this city of Brahman is a small lotus-chamber. Small is the
ether within that. What is within that should be searched out"
(Chānd. 8.1.1 ²) and continuing: "This soul is free from sins" (Chānd.
8.1.5 ³), it is declared that the Highest Self, possessed of the attributes
of having true "desire and so on" is the object to be worshipped.
And in the Vājasaneyaka, in the text: "He, verily, is the great, unborn
self, who is this one consisting of knowledge among the vital-breaths,
who lies in the ether within the heart, the controller of all, the Lord
of all" (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ⁴), it is declared that the Highest Self, possessed
of the attributes of being the controller and so on, is the object to
be worshipped. Here the vidyās are identical. Hence the attributes
of having true desires and the rest are to be included in the Vājasa-
neyaka, and those of being the controller and so on in the Chāndogya.
Why? On account of the non-difference of abode and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, (the author) points out that when owing to the non-
difference of forms, the vidyās, mentioned in even different treatises,
are not different, how much more it is the case that the vidyās,
demonstrated by two sections of the same treatise, are not different
owing to the non-difference of forms.
¹ G.B. 3.3.39, pp. 177-178, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.
³ Ś. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

[Sū. 3. 3. 38.
662 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 17.]
Having designated the Highest Self by the term 'ether' in the
passage: "Now, that which is within this city of Brahman is a small
lotus-chamber, small is the ether within that. What is within that
should be searched for" (Chānd 8.1 1), the Chandogas go on to men-
tion His special characteristics by means of eight attributes, thus:
"This soul is free from sins, without old age, without death, without
grief, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true
resolves" ((Chānd. 8 1.5).
Having stated: "He, verily, is the great, unborn self, who is
this one consisting of knowledge among the vital-breaths, who lies
in the ether within the heart" (Bṛh. 4.4 22), the Vājasaneyins too go
on to mention His special characteristics by means of the attributes of
being a controller and so on, thus: "The controller of all, the ruler of
all" (Bṛh. 4.4.22).
Here the doubt is, viz. whether the vidyās of the Chandogas
and the Vājasaneyins are different, or whether they are identical.
On the suggestion, viz In the one case, the object to be meditated
on is the Highest Self, denoted by the term 'ether' and possessed of
the attributes of freedom from sins and so on; while in the other
case, the object to be meditated on is one who abides within a special
kind of ether and is possessed of the attributes of being a controller
and so on. This being so, owing to the difference of forms, there
results difference of the objects to be known, and hence the vidyās
differ,—
We reply: The vidyās are identical, owing to the non-difference
of forms. So says (the author): "Desire and the rest". "Desire
and the rest," i.e. the group of attributes like having true desires
and so on, mentioned in the Chāndogya text. "Free from sins"
(Chānd. 8.1.5) and so on, is to be inserted "elsewhere", i.e. in the
Vājasaneyaka. "And here," i.e. and in the Chāndogya, the group
of attributes like being the controller and so on, mentioned in the
Vājasaneyaka text, is to be inserted. This being so, the form
is not different; that being so, there is identity of the objects to be
meditated on and hence the vidyās are identical.
(The author) states the reasons for this mutual insertion of attri-
butes: "On account of abode and so on", i.e. on account of the non-
difference, in both the cases, of the abode, viz. the heart; ¹ of the
¹ Vide Chānd. 8.1.1; Bṛh. 4 4.22. See the quotations above.

[sū. 3. 3. 38.
ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 663
designation of Brahman, the object to be meditated on, as a bridge; ¹
and of the connection with the fruit, viz. the attainment of Brahman,
mentioned in the passages "Having attained the form of highest
light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd 8 4 4), "He becomes
the fearless Brahman" (Chānd 4.4.25)
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
This is sūtra 39 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an
adhikarana by itself. He begins by explaining the sūtra exactly
like Nimbārka, viz. that there is identity of the vidyās here and hence
the attributes are to be mutually combined. But in conclusion he
adds that there is, however, a difference between the two passages,
viz. that the Chāndogya text refers to the qualified Brahman, the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka text to the highest Brahman.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
He reads: "Kāmādayas tatra tatra". Interpretation same,
only while Nimbārka speaks of only two Upanisads, he speaks of three,
viz. Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Māhā-nārāyaṇa (Mahānār.
10.7), and points out that all these three passages refer to the same
vidyā.³ He takes it as forming an adhikarana by itself.
Baladeva
This is sūtra 40 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikarana
here (two sūtras) concerned with Śrī, the eternal consort of the Lord.
According to him, the words 'sā eva' are to be supplied here from the
preceding sūtra. Hence the sūtra: "She (viz. the parā-śakti of the
Lord) alone (is Śrī), (who creates all) objects of desire and so on else-
where (i.e. in the material world) and here (i.e. in the city of the Lord
or Saṃvyoma), (for the Lord) since (she is) all-pervading ("āya"),

¹ Vide Chānd. 8.4.1; Bṛh. 4.4.22.
² Ś.B. 3.3.38, p. 820, "Ayaṃ tu atra vidyate viśeṣaḥ, saguṇā hi Brahma-
vidyā Chāndogye Upadiśyate, . . . Vājasaneyake tu nirguṇam eva paraṃ Brah-
mopadiśyamānaṃ dṛśyate".
³ ŚK. 3.3.38, p. 350, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 39.
664 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 17.]
spreading out (“tana”) (bliss and release for the devotees) and so
on”.¹
SŪTRA 39
“ON ACCOUNT OF CARE, THERE IS NON-OMISSION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is no negation of the attributes of having true desires and
so on, recorded “carefully”, since the negation: “There is no plurality
here” (Bṛh. 4.4.19; Kaṭha 4 11 ²) refers to the things not having
Brahman for their essence.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It may be objected: The statement, made above, that the group
of attributes like ‘being the controller’ and so on, mentioned in the
Vājasaneyaka, is to be inserted in the Chāndogya, is not justifiable.
In accordance with the text under discussion, viz. “It is to be
perceived by the mind alone. There is no plurality here, He gets death
after death who perceives here apparent plurality. It is to be looked
upon as a unity alone,—this unknowable being” (Bṛh. 4.4.19-20), as
well as in accordance with the subsequent text: “This soul is not this,
not this” (Bṛh. 4.4.22), we arrive at the conclusion that the Highest
is free from distinctions. Hence it is known that like grossness,
atomicity and so on, the group of attributes like ‘being the controller’
and so on, is something to be negated. Hence, it should be known
that in the Chāndogya too, the group of attributes like having true
desires and so on, is something to be negated. This being so, such an
absence of attributes is to be included in all the meditations subserving
final release.—To this (the author) says:
There is “non-omission”, i.e. non-denial, of the attributes of the
Highest Brahman, like ‘having true desires’ and so on and ‘being the
controller’ and so on, which are incapable of being denied and
are taught “carefully” as something new in the texts: “What is
within that should be searched for” (Chānd. 8.1.1), “This soul is free
from sins, without old age, without death, without grief, without
hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves”
¹ G.B. 3.3.40, pp. 182–184, Chap. 3. ² R.

[sū. 3. 3. 39.
ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 665
(Chānd. 8.1.5), “Those who go, having found here the soul and the
true desires, come to have free movement in all the worlds” (Chānd.
8 1.6), “The controller of all, the ruler of all” (Bṛh. 4.4 22; 5.6.1),
“He is the Lord of all, he is the ruler of all beings, he is the protector
of all beings” (Bṛh. 4.4 22), “He is the separating dam for keeping
these worlds apart” (Bṛh. 4.4.22) and so on. On the contrary, they
are to be inserted, there being no authority for their denial.
The scriptural text: “There is no plurality here” (Bṛh. 4.4.19;
Kaṭha 4.11) states, on the other hand, that in Brahman, who is
the cause of the world, who is different and non-different from the
sentient and the non-sentient and who has the stated marks, there
is no ‘plurality’, i.e. there are no objects which, not having their
existence and activity dependent on Him are dependent on one another
only Since everything has Brahman for its essence, ‘he who perceives
here apparent plurality’, not having Brahman for his essence, ‘gets
death after death’. He is to be ‘looked upon as a unity alone’, since all
things have Brahman for their essence, and since there is nothing
which does not have Brahman for its essence. This is what the text
designates, but it does not prove that the real attributes of Brahman
are to be denied.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 40 in Śaṁkara’s commentary. They begin a new
adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different
topic, viz. whether the Prāṇāgni-hotra or the offering of the first food
to the vital-breaths, enjoined in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 5.19.1), is
to be omitted when eating itself is omitted or not. This sūtra states
the prima facie view, viz. that there is no omission of the offering
to the vital-breath even when there is the omission of eating, but it
has to be performed by means of water in place of food, since the
Jābāla version of the same vidyā (viz. Vaiśvānara-vidyā) shows
great respect for this ceremony of Prāṇāgni-hotra.
Śrīkaṇṭha
He takes it to be an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets it in a
sectarian way. The question is whether the form of the Lord as
having a blue neck (Nīla-kaṇṭha), having Umā by His side and having
attributes like true desires and so on is something to be negated

666 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 3. 40.
ADH. 17.]
or not. The prima facie view is that having parts like a blue neck
and so on involves increase and decrease and hence it is not possible
on the part of Brahman, the immutable. Therefore, the attributes
of having a blue neck, having Umā by the side and so on, are not His
real attributes, but are simply imagined for the sake of meditation
and are, as such, subject to negation sometime or other. The
answer is: "There is no negation (of the attributes having a blue
neck, three eyes, Umā by the side and so on), since (they are designated
in Scripture) with (great) care". That is, the Lord (viz. Śiva) is to
be meditated on always as having a blue neck and so on and as
accompanied by Umā,—which are His real attributes—for such a
meditation alone leads to release.¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 41 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic
of Śrī, viz. her identity with the parā-śakti of the Lord. The problem
is that if Śrī be identical with the parā-śakti of the Lord, then she
must be identical with the Lord Himself, since the parā-śakti of the
Lord is identical with Him. In that case, however, she cannot be
devoted to the Lord, since none can be devoted to one's own self.
The answer is: "On account of (her great) regard (for the Lord),
there is non-cessation (of her devotion for Him)". That is, Śrī,
though one with the Lord, cannot but love and be devoted to Him
who is her very existence, just as the branch cannot but love the tree,
or the ray the moon.²
SŪTRA 40
"WHEN ONE HAS APPROACHED (THE LORD, HE COMES TO HAVE
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT), FOR THIS REASON, ON ACCOUNT OF
STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
When one has attained Brahman by means of meditating on Him
who has the stated marks, one comes to have freedom of movement in
1 ŚK. B. 3.3.39, pp. 354-355, Parts 10 and 11.
2 G.B. 3.3.41, p. 185, Chap. 3. "Satyapya bhede vicitra-guṇaratnākarat-
vena sva-mūlatvena ca śriyaḥ parasmin ādarāt tad bhakter lopaḥ. Na khalu-
vṛkṣam anādriyamāṇā śākhāsti, na candram tatprabhā."