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

60 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 1. 17.
ADH. 6.]
the object to be explained and the explanation, refer to the same
topic. Hence that which consists of bliss is the Highest Self alone.
SŪTRA 17
"NOT THE OTHER, ON ACCOUNT OF INAPPROPRIATENESS"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The qualities peculiar to the Lord, which are mentioned in
Scripture as relating to that which is signified by the term 'consisting
of bliss', being "inappropriate" on the part of anything else, "the
other", i.e. the individual soul, is not signified by the term 'consisting
of bliss'
Vedānta-kaustubha
"The other", i.e the individual, soul is not to be understood
here by the term 'consisting of bliss'. Why? "On account of
inappropriateness", i.e. the creatorship of the entire world and the
like, mentioned as relating to that which consists of bliss in the
scriptural text: "He wished: 'May I be many, may I procreate'
He created all this" (Tait. 2.6), are not appropriate on the part of
the individual soul. Hence that which consists of bliss is Brahman
alone.
Or else, the following construction (of the sūtra) may be under-
stood:—The individual soul, "other than" Brahman, is not "mantra-
described", because the qualities which are peculiar to the "mantra-
described", viz. being the object to be attained by the wise and so on,
are "inappropriate" on the part of anything else.
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja
Reading same, interpretation different—'The other (viz. the
individual) (is) not (the object of the text: "Truth, knowledge and
infinite", Tait. 2.1), on account of inappropriateness'. That is,
Rāmānuja takes this sūtra as continuing more particularly the theme
of the preceding sūtra where it has been shown that Brahman is
designated by the text 'Truth, knowledge and infinite' (Tait. 2.1)
Here it is shown, he points out, that none else than the Lord, not

[sū. 1. 1. 18
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 61
even the freed soul, can be the object of the above text, for even the
freed soul is not absolute ¹ knowledge in the sense the Lord is, as even
the freed soul cannot wish to be many and so on. So it is not appro-
priate that the individual soul can ever be the object of the above
text and be identical with Brahman ²
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading same, interpretation different, viz. 'The other' (viz.
Hiraṇyagarbha) (is) not (the cause of the world), on account of in-
appropriateness'. According to Śrīkaṇṭha a new adhikaraṇa begins
with this sūtra (sūtras 17–20), concerned with the question whether
the Lord is the cause of the world, or someone else, viz. Hiraṇya-
garbha.³

SŪTRA 18
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF DIFFERENCE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the designation of a difference" between the
obtainer and the object obtained in the text: 'For, verily, on obtaining
this essence, he becomes blissful' (Tait. 2 7) ⁴ the individual soul
is not that which consists of bliss.
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason, too, that which consists of bliss or the 'mantra-
described' one is not the individual soul. Why? Because the
individual soul and the Supreme Being are designated as different.
Thus, the text 'He is, verily, the essence. For, verily, on attaining
the essence, he becomes blissful' (Tait 2 7), designates a difference
between the Highest Self, consisting of bliss and mantra-described,
as the object to be obtained, and the individual soul, as the obtainer,
since the obtainer cannot be the object obtained. There is a difference
of nature between the individual soul and Brahman, otherwise an

¹ Nirupādhika.
² Śrī. B. 1.1 17, pp. 193-194, Part 1.
³ ŚK. B. 1.1.17, pp. 230–237, Part 3.
⁴ Ś, Bh.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 19.
62 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 6 ]
intermixture of qualities will result,—this is the meaning of the two
aphorisms.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
This is sūtra 17 in his commentary. Reading and literal inter-
pretation same, quotes the same passage, but in conclusion adds his
own view, viz. that really and transcendentally, there is no difference
between the soul, the obtainer, and Brahman, the obtained.¹
Rāmānuja
Reading and interpretation same, but refers to a different passage,
viz. Taittirīya-upaniṣad, 2.5.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading same, interpretation different, viz : ‘(If it be said that
Hiraṇyagarbha is identical with the Supreme Lord, then we reply,
no), on account of the designation of difference’.³
——
SŪTRA 19
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF DESIRE (THROUGH WHICH SIMPLY THE
LORD IS ABLE TO REALIZE HIS PURPOSES), THERE IS NO DEPEN-
DENCE (OF THE LORD) ON (WHAT IS AN OBJECT OF) INFERENCE
(VIZ. PRADHĀNA).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If the individual soul be admitted to be the cause, it must depend
on a material cause, viz. on pradhāna which is an (object of) “in-
ference”, just as a potter has to depend on clay and the rest in creating
pots and the like. But the Highest Person, non-material, consisting
of bliss and omnipotent, has to depend on nothing. Why? “On
account of desire”, i.e. on account of intention, as declared by the
scriptural text:—‘He desired: “May I be many”’ (Tait. 2.6).⁴
1 Ś.B 1.1.17, pp. 221-22.
2 Cf. also Chānd. 6.2.3. ‘Sa aīkṣata bahu syām’, etc.
3 ŚK. B. 1.1 19, pp. 237 ff, Part 1. 4 Ś, R, Bh, B.

[sū. 1. 1. 19.
ADH. 6 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 63
Hence that which consists of bliss is different from that (viz. the
individual soul).
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. Pradhāna may very well be denoted by
the term ‘consisting of bliss’, as it contains the quality of sattva
which is the cause of bliss, and as it corresponds to the effect ¹,—we
reply —
The term ‘consisting of bliss’ contains no “reference” to “in-
ference”, i. e. to that which is inferred, viz. pradhāna. Why? “On
account of desire”, i.e. because the text, which refers to that which
consists of bliss, viz. ‘He desired: “May I be many”’ (Tait. 2.6),
mentions one who desires. The sense is that desire means volition,
and that is not possible on the part of the non-sentient pradhāna,
but is possible on the part of the omniscient Lord of all. Although
pradhāna has already been set aside by the aphorism ‘Because (the
creator) sees, not, non-scriptural’ (Br. Sū. 1.1.5), it is once more set
aside here with a view to confirming the ‘universality of knowing’ ²
and hence there is no fault of repetition.
Or else, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra:)—if the indivi-
dual soul be denoted by the term ‘consisting of bliss’, the topic of the
present discussion, it must be the cause of the world as well; and in
that case, just as potters have to depend on clay and the rest for
creating pots, etc. so the individual soul too must depend on pradhāna,
which is a synonym for ‘inference’. ³ But if the omnipotent Brahman
be the cause of the world, no such fault arises,—this is the sense.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 18 in their commentaries. Reading same, interpre-
tation different, viz. ‘And on account of desiring, there is no reference

¹ That is, pradhāna, the non-sentient cause, is similar to the effect, the non-
sentient world. Vide V.K. 1.1.5.
² Vide Br. Sū. 1.1.11, where it has been said that Brahman is universally
known from all texts to be the cause of the world.
³ That is, pradhāna has been called ‘inference’ (anumāna) in the sūtra,
because it is an object of inference.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 20.
64 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 6.]
to (what is an object of) inference (viz pradhāna) (in the term "ānanda-
maya"). That is, Scripture predicates willing on the part of the
ānanda-maya, and willing is possible on the part of a conscious being
alone.¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading same, interpretation different—viz. 'And, (even) on
account of desire, (i e. in spite of the fact that Hiraṇyagarbha is said
to have desired to create the world,) (his being the creator) is not
dependent on reasoning (i.e. does not stand to reason,) (because
it is the Lord Himself who created the world in the character of
Hiraṇyagarbha)'.²
SŪTRA 20
"AND (SCRIPTURE) TEACHES THE UNION WITH THAT (VIZ. BLISS)
OF THIS (VIZ. THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL) IN THIS (VIZ. THE LORD)"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Scripture "teaches" the "union with that", i.e. the union with
bliss, in the passage:—'Verily, he is an essence, for verily, on attaining
the essence, he becomes blissful' (Tait. 2. 7). Hence it is established
that He, on attaining whom the individual soul comes to be united
with bliss, is different from it
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason also that which consists of bliss is neither the
individual soul, nor pradhāna, but Brahman alone, since Scripture
"teaches" the "union with that", i.e. the "union" or 'connection',
with "that", or the Highest Self,—i.e. salvation, characterized by
the attaining of His nature,³—'of this', i.e. of the individual soul,
relying on Him, "in this", i.e. in the Highest Person, the Highest
¹ Ś. B. 1. 1. 18, p. 222; Bh. B. 1. 1. 18, p. 26. Note that this is adopted as an
alternative explanation of the sūtra by Śrīnivāsa, but not by Nimbārka. See
above.
² ŚK. B. 1. 1. 19 (pp. 240-241, Part 3)
³ Note that while according to Nimbārka, the word 'tad-yogam' means
'union with bliss', according to Śrīnivāsa, it means 'union with the Highest
Self', or salvation, though ultimately these two interpretations come to the
same thing.

[sū. 1. 1. 20
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 65
Self, consisting of bliss and mantra-described. And the scriptural
text to this effect is as follows:—‘For, truly, when he finds fear-
lessness as a foundation in that which is invisible, incorporeal, un-
defined, and unsupported, then he is gone to fearlessness. When,
however, he makes the smallest distinction therein, then he comes to
have fear’ (Tait. 2 7) The meaning of this is as follows. ‘When’,
i e when at the time of birth which took place at a time when there
was a causeless kindly glance by the Lord, as mentioned in sacred
texts, thus ‘But should Madhusūdana glance at a person, when he
is born, he should be known to be pure and given to the thought
of salvation’. ‘“Through my grace, he attains an eternal and un-
changeable place”’ (Gītā 18.56) and so on, ‘he’, i.e. a knower, devoid
of any desire for enjoyments here or hereafter, restoring to the feet
of the Lord alone and possessed of the characteristics as stated in
Scripture thus · ‘ “I am easily attainable by one, O Pārtha, by the ever-
free ascetic, who constantly remembers me, not thinking ever of
another”’ (Gītā 18 14), ‘He who departs, discarding the body,
uttering the one syllable “om” and remembering me, goes to a supreme
goal’, ‘“Knowing me, he goes to peace”’ (Gītā 5.29), ‘The knower
of Brahman attains the highest’ (Tait. 2.1), and so on, becomes
fearless, he ‘finds’, i.e. attains, ‘a foundation’, i.e unfailing,
devotion (or reliance) through His grace alone. ‘Then’, i.e im-
mediately after, ‘he is gone to fearlessness’, on account of the
absence of any devotion (on his part) to anyone else, which (alone)
is the cause of fear In whom ? ‘In the invisible’, i.e. in that
which is different from the group of the non-sentient which is visible.
Again, in whom? ‘In the incorporeal’, ie in the supremely
conscious Being, who is different from the group of souls or conscious
beings,—that He is the supremely conscious Being is stated in the
Kaṭhavallī, thus. ‘Conscious among the conscious’ (Kaṭha. 5.13;
also Śvet. 6.13);—‘in the undefined’, i.e. in that which is not estab-
lished as having so-muchness and the nature and qualities of which
are to be known from the Vedānta alone; ‘in the unsupported’,
i.e. in that which has no basis, which is possessed of infinite, incon-
ceivable powers,—this is the sense. And ‘when’, i.e. when during
the period of nescience, ‘he’, i.e. a non-knower, ‘makes’ even the
smallest ‘distinction’, i.e. relies on something else, viz. one or other
of the ends, connected with means (other than a complete resort
to the Lord alone), ‘then he comes to have fear’. Hence, it is
5

[sū. 1. 1. 20.
66 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.]
established that that which consists of bliss is Brahman, different
from all the sentient and the non-sentient ¹
Here ends the section entitled 'That which consists of bliss' (6).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
This is sūtra 19 in his commentary. Reading and interpretation
same, quotes the passage quoted by Śrīnivāsa. But here Śaṃkara
changes his point of view all of a sudden, and after having given at
length the very same interpretation as given by Nimbārka, viz. that
the 'ānanda-maya' referred to in the Taittirīya-upaniṣad (Tait. 2.5)
is the Highest Self,² and not the individual soul or pradhāna, he
finally rejects it, at the end of this sūtra, in favour of another, viz.
that the word 'Brahman' in the immediately following phrase.
'Brahma puccham pratiṣṭhā' (Tait 2.5), refers to Brahman prin-
cipally, and not as a member of the 'ānanda-maya', for the 'ānanda-
maya' would refer to the qualified Brahman, and never to the non-
qualified Brahman, which is called 'ānanda', and not 'ānandamaya'.³
Bhāskara
This is sūtra 19 in his commentary too. Reading same, inter-
pretation of the word 'tad-yogam' slightly different—viz 'union
with Him (the Lord)', i.e. salvation.⁴ (Cf. Śrīnivāsa.) Quotes a
different portion of the same passage (viz the portion quoted by
Śrīnivāsa).
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading same, interpretation different—viz. 'Herein (viz. in
the Mahā-nārāyaṇa-upaniṣad) (Scripture) teaches his (i.e. Hiraṇya-
¹ Note that here Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa understand the word 'śāsti' as
referring to two different portions of the same passage, viz. Tait. 2 7, Nimbārka
to the first part, Śrīnivāsa to the last.
² Vide Ś.B. 1.1.12, p. 217, 'Para evātmā ānanda-mayo bhavitum arhati'
In this very sūtra also, it is said:—'Tasmād ānanda-mayaḥ paramātmā iti
sthitam'. Ś.B. 1.1.19, p. 223.
³ Vide Ś.B. 1.1.19, pp. 225-26.
⁴ Bh. B. 1.1.19, p. 26.

[sū. 1. 1. 21
ADH. 7 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 67
garbha’s) connection with that (viz. the Supreme Lord) ’.¹ While
according to Nimbārka, sūtras 13–20 form one section, concerned with
the question of the ‘ānanda-maya’, according to Śrīkaṇṭha, Sūtras
13–16 form one section, while sūtras 17–20 form another different
section, concerned with the question, as noted above, whether Hiraṇya-
garbha is the creator of the world, or the Supreme Lord (viz. Śiva).
Baladeva
This is sūtra 19 in his commentary. Reading same, interpretation
of the word ‘tad-yogam’ different, viz. ‘union with fearlessness’.
Quotes the passage quoted by Śrīnivāsa.²
Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled ‘That which
is within’. (Sūtras 21-22)
SŪTRA 21
“THAT WHICH IS WITHIN (THE SUN AND THE EYE) (IS NONE BUT
THE HIGHEST SELF), ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF HIS
QUALITIES.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
He who abides “within” the sun and the eye and is to be wor-
shipped by one desiring salvation, is, truly, the Highest Self alone,
and not a particular individual soul. Why? “On account of the
teaching of the qualities belonging to Him” alone, viz. qualities like
‘freedom from sins’, ‘being the soul of all’ and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In this manner, it has been shown in a general manner in the
two sections that the stated texts all refer to Brahman, who is
different from pradhāna as well as from the individual soul and
is the cause of the origin and the rest of the world. Now, after
having mentioned the peculiar qualities of the Lord, such as, possess-
ing an eternally present, non-celestial body and so on, and then by
showing the concordance of those texts (with regard to the Lord),
the author denotes, up to the end of the section, the difference
¹ SK B. 1.1.20, pp 240-241, Part 3
² G.B 1.1.19, pp. 76–77, Chap. 1.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 21
68 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7 ]
of Brahman from particular individual souls who have attained
eminence by virtue of supreme merit, as well as from particular non-
sentient objects, like time and the like.
In the Chāndogya, we read: 'Now, this golden Person, who is
seen within the sun, has a golden beard and golden hair, and is golden
through and through, right to the finger-nail tips. His eyes are like
the full-blown lotus. His name is High, (because) he has risen above
all sins. Verily, he who knows thus rises above all sins. His singers
are the Ṛc and the Sāman . . . .¹ So much with reference to
the gods' (Chānd 1.6 6-1 6 8), 'Now, with reference to the self'
(Chānd. 1.7 1), 'Now, this person, who is seen within the eye'
(Chānd 1.7.5) and so on.
Here, a doubt arises, viz whether this Person, mentioned in
Scripture as abiding within the sun and the eye, is a particular indivi-
dual soul, or the Supreme Lord? What is reasonable here? If it
be suggested: An individual soul who has attained eminence. Why?
Because the person within the sun and the person within the eye
are declared by Scripture to be possessed of a form in the passages
(respectively): 'Having a golden beard, golden hair' (Chānd. 1.6 6),
'The form of this one is the very same as the form of that one'
(Chānd. 1.7 5); because a limit to the lordship of both is declared
respectively by the texts—'He rules these worlds which are beyond
that, as well as the desires of gods' (Chānd. 1.6.8), 'He rules these
worlds which are under that, as well as the desires of men' (Chānd
1.7 6), because the dependence of both on something else is declared
(respectively) by the texts: 'Within the sun' (Chānd. 1.6.6), 'Within
the eye' (Chānd. 1.7.5), and because the Supreme Self is declared to
be just the opposite by the texts 'Without sound, without touch,
without form' (Kaṭha 3.15), '"On what, my reverend Sir, is it based?'
"On its own greatness"' (Chānd. 7.24.1), 'This is the Lord of
beings' (Bṛh. 4.4.22), etc.—
We reply: The Person, mentioned in Scripture as "within" the
sun and the eye is the Highest Self alone. Why? "On account of
the teaching of his qualities," i e. because of the "teaching", in this
text, of the qualities "of him", viz. of the Highest Soul alone, such as,
being free from sins in every way, being the remover of all the sins
¹ Quotation incomplete—viz:— 'His singers are the Ṛc and the Sāman
Therefore (they are called) the udgītha' and so on See footnote 1, p. 69

[sū. 1. 1 21.
ADH 7] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 69
of His own devotees, and so on, as well as, being the soul of all and
the rest, thus · 'He, verily, is the Ṛc, the Sāman, the Uktha, the
Yajus, He is Brahman'¹ (Chānd. 1.7 5), because in accordance with
the scriptural texts: 'When the seer sees the golden-coloured person'
(Muṇḍ. 3 1 3), 'Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness' (Śvet.
3.8; Gītā 8 9), 'That on which all these powers are based, O king,
is another great form of Hari, different from the form of the world',
and so on, like His natural qualities of possessing true desires and the
rest, His possessing a form too, involves no contradiction; and because
the text: 'Without sound, without touch, without colour' (Kaṭha
3 15) is concerned with denying sound and the like belonging to the
material world. Nor is Brahman depicted here as possessed of a
limited lordship, since the text setting forth such a limit is concerned
with an arrangement of presiding deities. Nor can Brahman be said
to be dependent on something else, since He is the support of all,
in accordance with the following scriptural and Smṛti texts, viz.
'Entered within, the ruler of men' (Taitt. Ār 3.11 1, 2²), 'The
Inner Soul of all beings' (Kaṭha 5.9, 10, 11, 5.12; Śvet. 6.11; Muṇḍ.
2.1.4), 'Who, abiding within the earth' (Bṛh. 3 7.3), '"And, I am
situated within the hearts of all"' (Gītā 15.15), '"I abide, supporting
the entire universe with a part of mine"' (Gītā 10.42), and so on.
Here, by the Vedic text,—which is omniscient, independent of all
proofs and authoritative by itself with regard to its own matter,—
viz. 'This golden person who is seen within the sun, having a golden
beard' (Chānd. 1 6.6) and so on, the body also of Brahman, the
topic of discussion, suitable to Him, is mentioned, on the basis of
direct perception alone, as evident from the statement: 'is seen'.
From this it is known that the Highest Self is to be meditated on by
one who desires salvation as possessed of a body. And, meditation
too, to be mentioned hereafter,³ is possible only if the Highest Self
be possessed of a body. The multitude of scriptural and Smṛti
texts, referring to the body of the Lord, is not quoted here for fear
of prolixity.
¹ Ṛc is a sacred verse, which is recited in praise of a deity; Sāman is a verse
which is sung; Yajus is a sacred formula which is muttered, Uktha is a kind of
recitation in sacrifices; Brahman is a sacred text or mantra, distinct from Ṛc,
Sāman and Yajus. M.W., pp. 172, 225, 737.
² P. 181.
³ Vide V.K. 3.3.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 22.
70 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.]
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
This is sūtra 20 in his commentary. Reading and interpretation
same, quotes the same passage. In conclusion, he adds that although
the Supreme Lord is really arūpa or formless, yet He may assume
various māyāmaya-rūpas for favouring His dovotees.¹ That is, all
these passages, teaching the worship of the Person within the sun
and so on, refer to the qualified Brahman only, and not to the highest
Brahman, which of course Nimbārka does not admit.
SŪTRA 22
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF DIFFERENCE, (THE
HIGHEST SELF IS) OTHER THAN (THE INDIVIDUAL SOULS OF THE
SUN AND THE REST)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The Highest Self is "other" than the group of individual souls
of the sun and the rest.² Why? "On account of the designation of
difference" in the text 'Abiding in the sun' (Bṛh. 3 7 9 ³) and so
on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason too, the Highest Self, is "other" than, i.e. different
by nature from, the individual souls of the sun and the rest within
which He abides. Why? "On account of the designation of differ-
ence" between the individual soul and Brahman, in the text: 'Who
abiding within the sun, is other than the sun, whom the sun does not
know, of whom the sun is the body, who rules the sun from within,
he is your soul, the inner controller, immortal' (Bṛh. 3.7.9). Thus,
¹ Ś B. 1.1 20, p. 232; 'Syāt parameśvarasyāpīcchā-vaśān māyāmayam
rūpam sādhakānugrahārtham'.
² C S S ed. slightly different—viz 'The Highest Self is other than the
group of the individual souls of the sun and the rest, within which He abides'
(p. 5).
³ Ś, R, Bh, B.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 23.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 71
the difference of Brahman from the individual soul, within which He
abides, is established.
Here ends the section entitled ‘That which is within’ (7).
Adhikarana 8: The section entitled ‘The ether’
(Sūtra 23)
SŪTRA 23
“(BRAHMAN IS DENOTED BY THE WORD) ETHER, ON ACCOUNT OF
HIS CHARACTERISTIC MARKS.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text. ‘“What is the final refuge of this world?” “The
ether”, said he’ (Chānd. 1.9.1 ¹), that which is denoted by the term
“ether” is the Highest Self. Why? “On account of his characteristic
marks,” such as, being the creator of all, and the like, mentioned in the
text: ‘All these things, verily, arise from the ether alone’ (Chānd
1.9.1 ²)
Vedānta-kaustubha
In this manner, it has been shown, on the ground of the peculiar
qualities of Brahman, the topic of discussion, that the text: ‘Now,
this golden person who is seen within the sun’ (Chānd. 1.6 8) and
so on, refers to Brahman, the topic of discussion. Now, it is being
shown that the text: ‘“What is the final refuge of this world?”’ and
so on too (Chānd 1.9.1) refers to Him, on the ground of the character-
istic marks of Brahman.
In the Chāndogya, we read the following under the dialogue
between Śālāvatya and Jaivali. ‘“What is the final refuge of this
world?”’ ‘“The ether,” said he, “All these beings, verily, arise from
the ether alone, disappear into the ether; for the ether alone is greater
than these, the ether is the supreme refuge”’ (Chānd. 1.9.1). Here
a doubt arises, viz. whether the elemental ether is meant by the term
‘ether’, or the Highest Self. What is reasonable here? If it be sug-
gested. As it is so well-known in the world and as it is declared also
by Scripture to be the cause of the elements beginning with the air,
1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B

[sū. 1. 1. 23.
72 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 8]
and so on, in the passage ‘From the “ether”, the “air”’ (Tait. 2.1),
the elemental ether (is meant here)—
We reply: In this text “the ether”, i.e. the object meant by the
term ‘ether’, is the Highest Self alone. Why? “On account of his
characteristic marks,” i.e. “his”, or the Highest Self’s, “characteristic
marks”, viz. being the creator of all beings, being superior, being
the supreme refuge, and so on,—on account of that,¹ i.e. on account
of the peculiar qualities of the Highest Self. It cannot be said, also,
that in accordance with the rule ‘When there is a collocation of
scriptural statement, mark, text, topic, place and name, each following
one is weaker (than each preceding one), on account of its remote-
ness from the meaning’ (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.14 ²), the scriptural state-
ment is of a greater force than the mark,—for in accordance with the
rule: ‘The strength and weakness of those which are spoilt by meaning-
lessness are in the opposite proportion’, the scriptural statement:
‘the ether’, is set aside by the mark mentioned in the text: ‘All
these beings, verily, arise from the ether alone’ (Chānd. 1.9.1).
If the word “ether” were to refer to the elemental ether, then no sense
would follow, for such a mark (viz. being the creator of all) is not
possible on the part of the elemental ether, on the contrary, the
elemental ether is declared by Scripture to be created by the Highest
Self, in the passage ‘From this soul, verily, the ether arose’ (Tait. 2.1).
Further, on the ground of the etymological interpretation too
(of the word ‘ether’ or ākāśa), viz. ‘The ether is that which shines
everywhere’, ³ as well as on the ground of its conventional meaning,
given in the passages: ‘If there were not this bliss in the ether’
(Tait. 2.7), ‘The ether, verily, is the revealer of names and forms’
(Chānd. 8.14.1) and so on, it is established that by the term “ether”,
the Supreme Self alone is denoted.
Here ends the section entitled ‘The ether’ (8).
¹ This explains the compound ‘tal-liṅgāt’.
² P. 284, vol. 1. Vide Śabara-bhāṣya.
³ Ā samantāt kāśata ity ākāśaḥ.

{sū. 1. 1. 24.
ADH. 9 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 73
Adhikarana 9: The section entitled 'The vital-
breath'. (Sūtra 24)
SŪTRA 24
"FOR THIS VERY REASON (BRAHMAN IS DENOTED BY THE WORD)
VITAL-BREATH."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text also 'All these beings, verily, enter into the vital-
breath alone, arise from the vital-breath' (Chānd. 1.11.5 ¹), the
vital-breath is none but the Highest Self, on account of the character-
istic marks of Brahman, viz. entering into and coming out of Him
Vedānta-kaustubha
In this manner, it has been pointed out that the text referring
to the ether denotes Brahman, and not the elemental ether Now,
by declaring that the text about the udgītha,² viz. 'O Prastotr !' ³
(Chānd 1.10 9; 1.11.4) and so on, also refers to Brahman, the author
extends here the same principle regarding the ether.
In the Chāndogya we find the following concerning the udgītha ⁴
under the dialogue between Cākrāyaṇa and the Prastotṛ. '"O Pras-
totṛ ! if you shall sing the prastāva ⁵ without knowing the Deity
who is connected with the prastāva, then your head will fall
off "' (Chānd. 1.10 9; 1.11.4), '"Which is that Deity?" "The vital-
breath," said he, "All these beings, verily, enter into the vital-breath
alone, arise from the vital-breath This is the Deity connected with
the prastāva "' (Chānd. 1.11.4–5). Here a doubt arises, viz. As
the entire world is found to exist as dependent on the vital-breath,
and as it is so well-known in the world, so by the term 'vital-breath'
a modification of the air too may be meant; and as in the text: '"For
the mind, my dear, has the vital-breath as its fastening"' (Chānd.
6 8.2) and so on, the term 'vital-breath' is applied to Brahman, so
Brahman may also be meant What is reasonable here? If it be
suggested: Since everything is found to be dependent on the vital-

1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
2 The word 'udgītha' is not included under the quotation.
3 A Prastotṛ is an assistant of the Udgātṛ, and sings the prastāva or the
introductory eulogy or the prelude of a sāman. M.W., p. 699.
4 The word 'udgītha' is not included under the quotation.
5 The prastāva is the introductory eulogy or the prelude of a sāman. See
footnote 3 above

[SŪ. 1. 1. 25.
74 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.]
breath, since popularly the term 'vital-breath' is well-known to be a
modification of the air, and since in the text: 'When, verily, a person
sleeps, his speech goes to the vital-breath, his eye to the vital-breath,
his ear to the vital-breath. When he wakes up, from the vital-breath
alone they arise again' (Śat Br. 10 3.3.6 ¹), the entrance into a
modification of the air and so on are mentioned, the chief vital-breath
alone, which is a modification of the air and has five modes, is under-
stood here by the term 'vital-breath',—
We reply. "For this very reason", i.e. on account of the very
characteristic marks of the Supreme Lord, viz. the entering into and
coming out (of Him) of all the great elements, it is reasonable to hold
that the object denoted by the term "vital-breath" is the Supreme Lord,
the Highest Person alone. The characteristic marks of the Supreme
Lord, viz. the entering into and the rising from Him of all the great
elements, as mentioned in the text: 'All the elements enter into, i.e.
merge into, and arise from, i.e. come out towards, Him', are not
possible in the case of a modification of the air. In the text: 'When,
verily, a person sleeps' (Śat. Br. 10.3.3.6), there is no mention of the
entering and so on of the great elements, but simply of the entering
and the rest of the sense-organs. Hence, on account of the marks
of the Supreme Lord, as well as on the ground of the etymological
interpretation (of the term 'vital-breath' or prāṇa), viz. 'In whom the
entire world breathes excellently, i.e. finds a basis', it is established
that the Highest Self alone is denoted by the term 'vital-breath'.
Here ends the section entitled "The vital-breath" (9)
Adhikarana 10: The section entitled 'The light'
(Sūtras 25-28)
SŪTRA 25
"(BRAHMAN IS DENOTED BY THE WORD) LIGHT, ON ACCOUNT OF
THE MENTION OF FEET."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"The light", mentioned in the passage: 'The light (higher) than
the heaven' (Chānd. 3.13.7 ²) is Brahman alone, "on account of the
1 P. 778, lines 9-11. Cf. a similar passage in Chānd. 4.3.3
2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[sū. 1. 1. 25.
ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 75
mention of feet", in the passage. '"One foot of him are all the ele-
ments"' (Chānd. 3.12.6 ¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
In this manner, it has been pointed out that the term 'ether',
as well as the term 'vital-breath' refer to Brahman, all-pervading,
untouched by any fault and the cause of all life. Now, the author is
showing that the term 'light' also refers to Brahman.
In the Chāndogya, it is recorded: 'Now, the light which shines
higher than this heaven, on the backs of all, on the backs of everything,
in the highest worlds than which there are no higher,—that, verily,
is the same light which is within this person' (Chānd. 3.13.7)
Here, a doubt arises, viz whether the term 'light' denotes the well-
known light of the sun and so on, or the Highest Self. What is reason-
able here? The prima facie view is as follows. It denotes the light of
the sun and the rest. Why? Because that is well-known to be a
remover of darkness, because Scripture mentions a limit in the passage :
'The light which shines higher than this heaven' (Chānd. 3.13.7),
because no limit is possible on the part of Brahman, because Scripture
speaks of a minor fruit in the passage: 'He who knows this becomes
agreeable to the eyes, and renowned' (Chānd. 3.13.8), and, finally,
because from the passage: 'That, verily, is the same light, which is
within this person' (Chānd. 3.13.7), its identity with the fire within
the belly is known.
On this suggestion, we reply: Here the object denoted by the
term "light" is the Supreme Brahman alone, possessed of unsurpassed
splendour. Why? "On account of the mention of feet" Thus,
in the text, which precedes the text about the 'light', viz. 'So much
is His greatness, and the Person is higher than this One foot of him
are all beings, three feet of him, the immortal in the heaven' (Ṛg-V.
10.10.3, Chānd. 3.12.6), Brahman is mentioned as having four feet.
Thus, all beings constitute His one foot Having all beings as one
foot is possible on the part of the Supreme Brahman alone, and never
on the part of any one else. Nor is any contradiction involved in the
declaration of His having the heaven as His limit, because, as the word
'higher' in the passage: 'What is higher than this' (Chānd. 3 13 7)
denotes superiority, it is not meant to denote non-comprehensiveness,

1 Ś, R, ŚK, B

[SŪ. 1. 1. 26.
76 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.]
and because from the passage ‘That the gods worship as the
Light of lights, as Life’ (Bṛh. 4.4.16) the term ‘light’ is known
to be referring to Brahman. Nor is any contradiction involved in the
declaration of a minor fruit, because Brahman is the giver of fruits
in accordance with the fitness of persons. As it is declared in the
‘Mystery of Fire’ ¹ of the Vājasaneyins ‘As one worships him, so
he becomes’ (Śat. Br. 10 5 2 10 ²), and by the Lord Himself, in
the passage — “‘Whosoever, in whatever way, resorts to me, him, in
that same way, do I favour’” (Gītā 4.11). And, the purpose of the
meditation on the identity (of the Lord) with the fire within the belly
is to be known from the text: “‘I, having become the Vaiśvānara ³,
abide within the bodies of living beings, and united with the prāṇa
and the apāna,⁴ I digest the four kinds of food’” (Gītā 15.14).
SŪTRA 26
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE MENTION OF THE
METRE, (BRAHMAN IS) NOT (DENOTED), (THEN, WE REPLY:) NO,
ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECLARATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE
MIND (TO BRAHMAN) THUS, FOR THUS IT IS SEEN (IN OTHER PAS-
SAGES TOO).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that “on account of the mention” of the metre
called ‘Gāyatrī’ in the preceding text, the text referring to the feet
may refer to that and not to Brahman,—(we reply:) “No, on
account of the declaration of the application of the mind” to the Lord,
who is denoted by the term ‘Gāyatrī’ owing to the connection of the
latter with certain qualities.⁵ Compare the word ‘virāj’ which
illustrates a parallel case.⁶

¹ Agni-rahasya is the title of the tenth book of the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa.
² P. 725, line 13 Cf. a very similar passage in Mudg. 3, p. 384, lines 8-9.
³ That is, the fire of digestion.
⁴ The prāṇa is one of the five modes of the chief vital-breath, and apāna
is another. The first goes upwards the nose, the second goes downwards through
the anus. Vide V.R.M.
⁵ That is, the Gāyatrī is said to possess certain qualities, which can belong
to the Lord alone. Hence, the Lord is really denoted by the term ‘Gāyatrī’.
See V.K. below.
⁶ We find that in other passages, too, a word, primarily denoting a metre,
may stand for something else, e g. the word ‘virāj’ primarily denotes a kind of

[sū. 1. 1. 26
ADH 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 77
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected: As the Gāyatrī metre is referred to in the preced-
ing passage viz.. 'The Gāyatrī, verily, is all this' (Chānd. 3.12.1),
the designation of beings as the foot, viz. 'One foot of him are all
beings' (Chānd 3.12 6), may refer to this very metre. It is not
reasonable to hold that this text establishes Brahman,—
(We reply.) "No." Why? "On account of the declaration of
the application of the mind thus," i.e. on account of the mention of
the fixing of the mind "thus" to Brahman who is denoted by the term
'Gāyatrī', since the latter is predicted to be the soul of all, in the
passage 'The Gāyatrī, verily, is all this' (Chānd. 3 12.1) Here,
the term 'Gāyatrī' denotes Brahman who inheres in the metre, it
being impossible for a metre, which is a mere collection of letters, to
be the soul of all. "For thus it is seen," i.e. in very same manner, a
parallel case is mentioned in the Aitarīya-upaniṣad, in the passage:—
"The Bahvrcas consider Him in the great-hymn, the Adhvaryus in
the sacrificial fire, the Chandogas in the Mahā-vrata ceremony" ¹
(Ait. Ār. 3.2 3, 12). The sense is that those who are conversant with
the Rg-veda, those who are conversant with the Sāma-veda, and those
metre, yet it denotes the 'kṛta' or the group of ten substances in Chānd. 4 3 8.
Similarly, though the word 'Gāyatrī' denotes a kind of metre, yet it may denote
Brahman too. See V K below.
C S.S. ed. reads: 'Kṛta-para',—meaning comes to the same, viz. the word
'vyāg' stands for the 'kṛta'.
¹ A Bahvrca is one conversant with the Ṛg-veda, a priest of it, or the Hotṛ
priest who represents it in the sacrificial ceremonies. M.W., p. 726.
An Adhvaryu is a priest of a particular class, as distinguished from the
Hotṛ, the Udgātṛ and the Brāhmaṇa classes. He has to measure the ground,
build the altar and so on, and while engaged in these duties, he has to repeat
the hymns of the Yajurveda. Vide op. cit., p. 24
A Chandoga is a chanter of the Sāma-veda, an Udgātṛ priest. Vide op. cit.,
p. 405.
The Mahat-uktha (great hymn) or the Bṛhat-uktha forms a series of verses,
in three sections, each containing eighty Tṛcas or triple verses, recited at the
end of the Agni-cayana. An Uktha is a verse which is recited, as distinguished
from the Sāman verse which is sung, and the Yajus or sacred formula which is
muttered. It forms a subdivision of the Śastras. Vide op. cit., p. 172. See
footnote 1, p. 78.
Mahā-vrata is the name of a great religious observance. It is also the name
of a Sāman or Stotra, appointed to be sung on the last day but one of the Gavām-
ayana. Vide M.W., p. 800.

78 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 1. 1. 26
ADH. 10.]
who are conversant with the Yajur-veda consider, respectively in
the chief Śāstra ¹, sacrificial fire, and the Mahā-vrata, Brahman who
inheres in them severally, like this, Brahman inheres in the (Gāyatrī)
metre.
Or, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra,) just as the Gāyatrī
is a class of metre which consists of four feet, each consisting of six
syllables ², so Brahman, too, has four feet in accordance with the
text: 'One foot of him are all beings, three feet, the immortal in the
heaven' (Chānd. 3.12.6). Accordingly, on account of the mention
of the fixing of the mind to Brahman who is metaphorically denoted
by the word 'Gāyatrī' in virtue of the fact that both possess the
quality of having four feet, the Gāyatrī is not recognized here, but
Brahman alone. “For thus it is seen,” i.e. in the very same manner,
a term denoting a metre is found applied,—in a literal (as opposed
to a metaphorical) sense,³—even to a different object in virtue of the
fact that both possess a common quality. Thus, beginning: 'These
five and the other five make ten, and that is the kṛta' ⁴ (Chānd.
4.3.8), the text goes on to say: 'That is the Virāj, the eater of food'
(Chānd. 4.3.8). Here under the saṁvargavidyā ⁵, the term 'Virāj',
¹ A Śāstra is a verse recited by the Hotṛ and his assistants. Vide M.W.,
p. 1044.
² Vide the verse: 'Indraś śacī-patiḥ / Balena pīḍitaḥ / duscyavano vrṣā / samitsu
sāsahiḥ' / Śrī. B. 1.1.26, p. 216, Part 1.
³ See end of footnote 5 below
⁴ Kṛta is the name of the die marked with four points
⁵ The Saṁvarga-vidyā or the knowledge concerning the snatcher-unto-
itself, taught by Raikva to Jānaśruti Vide Chānd. 4.3. The wind is the
snatcher-unto-itself among the gods, the vital-breath is the snatcher-unto-
itself among the sense-organs The wind absorbs fire, the sun, the moon and
water. The vital-breath absorbs speech, the eye, the ear and the mind And,
the wind, together with its four kinds of food, viz fire, the sun, the moon and
water—these five, and the vital-breath, together with its four kinds of food,
viz. speech, the eye, the ear and the mind—these five, make ten or the 'kṛta',
which is called the 'Virāj'. Here, the Kṛta has actually ten constituent parts,
just as the Virāj metre has actually ten syllables. Hence these two are said
to resemble each other in a literal sense, and not in a figurative one, as opposed
to the case of Brahman and Gāyatrī, since when it is said that Brahman has
four feet, it is not meant that He has actually four feet, but only metaphorically,
while Gāyatrī has actually four feet or parts. Hence, here the term 'gauṇa'
has been used in connection with the latter case, and the term 'śākya' in con-
nection with the former. Vide V.K. above.

[sū. 1. 1 27.
ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 79
which is a class of metre of ten syllables, is found applied to a collection
of ten objects or the kṛta.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
This is sūtra 25 in his commentary. Reading same. He gives
two alternative explanations of the sūtra Under the first, he points
out that the passage ‘The Gāyatrī, verily, is all this’ (Chānd. 3.12 1)
intimates that by means of the metre Gāyatrī, the mind is to be directed
to Brahman who is connected with the Gāyatrī as its cause, just as
devout meditation on Brahman under the form of certain effects of
Brahman is mentioned in other passages, viz. Aitereya-āraṇyaka.
(See Śrīnivāsa above.) Under the second, he points out that according
to some, the term Gāyatrī directly denotes Brahman, since both
possess four feet, and quotes a Chāndogya passage as an example.
(See Śrīnivāsa above )¹
Rāmānuja
Reading slightly different—viz. ‘nigmāt’ in place of ‘nigadāt’.
Interpretation same ²
Baladeva
This is sūtra 25 in his commentary too. Reading and interpre-
tation same, only the interpretation of the phrase ‘Tathā hi darśanam’
different. He does not take it as referring to one specific parallel
instance as Nimbārka does but understands ‘darśanam’ in the
sense of ‘consistency’, and the phrase means, according to him, ‘for
by such an explanation alone the above passage gives a consistent
meaning ’.³
SŪTRA 27
“AND BECAUSE THE DESIGNATION OF THE BEINGS AND SO ON AS
THE FEET IS APPROPRIATE (ONLY IF BRAHMAN BE DENOTED BY THE
TERM “GĀYATRĪ”), THIS IS SO.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
We hold that the Gāyatrī is Brahman not only ‘on account of
the declaration of the application of the mind thus’ (last part of Br.
¹ S B 1 1.25. ² Śrī. B. 1.1.26, p. 215, vol. 1.
³ G.B. 1.1.25, pp 91-92, Chap. 1.