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

860 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 4. 3.
ADH. 1.]
by various afflictions, and who is deluded by various false argumenta-
tions, is said to be eternally fettered. He does not know his own form,
though ever-present. During the period when he desires for salvation
also, though he comes to know his real nature through the grace of
Scripture and spiritual preceptor, yet due to his connection with
matter in its causal and effected states, he is not completed in his own
real form. The very same person, coming to attain the form of highest
light through the path beginning with light, and free from all fetters,
is completed in his own form, and then he is said to be freed,—thus
is the distinction between these three states. Why? “On account
of promise,” i.e. because beginning. “The self which is free from sins”
(Chānd. 8 7.1), Prajāpati promised. “ ‘But this alone I shall explain
to you’ ” (Chānd. 8.9 3, etc.), which promise refers to the demonstra-
tion of the real nature of the soul, free from all faults, such as the
three states of waking and the rest, and from the body and the like,
their substratum. If there be no distinction, the promise of Prajāpati
must be meaningless,—this is the sense.
SŪTRA 3
“THE SELF, ON ACCOUNT OF CONTEXT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“The self” alone comes to have its real nature manifest, “on
account of context”.
Vedānta-kaustubha
“The soul,” the real nature of which is veiled during its state of
bondage, having attained the Highest Brahman, denoted by the
words ‘highest light’ becomes manifest in its own form, i.e. is completed
as having the qualities of freedom from sins and so on, but is not
completed in another adventitious form. This fact is known from the
introductory portion of Prajāpati’s declaration, viz.: “The self that
is free from sins, without old age, without death, without grief, without
hunger, without thirst, having true desires” (Chānd. 8.7.1),—i.e. from
the context, which refers to the individual soul. In the very same
manner, Śaunaka declares: “Just as the lustre of a gem is not created
by the washing off of the dirt, so the knowledge of the soul is not created
25B

[SŪ. 4. 4. 4.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 861
by the removal of faults. Just as water is not created by the digging
of a well, only what is already existent is brought to manifestation,—
for how can there be the origination of what is non-existent,—so the
attributes of knowledge and the rest are manifested, and not created,
through the destruction of the evil qualities, for they belong to the
soul eternally."
Hence it is established that having attained the Highest Brahman
through the path which begins with light, the individual soul is
completed in its own natural form alone.
Here ends the section entitled "Manifestation on attaining" (2)
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva
They interpret the sūtra thus: "(The light is) the soul (viz. Brah-
man), on account of context".¹
Adhikaraṇa 2: The section entitled "Seen as
non-divided". (Sūtra 4)
SŪTRA 4
"AS NON-DIVIDED, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING SEEN."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The freed soul realizes itself "as non-divided" from the Highest
Self, which non-division is compatible with a division (between the
two), since this truth is directly intuited at that time (viz. during
release), and since Scripture too intuits this.
Vedānta-kaustubha
From the text: "Having attained the form of highest light"
(Chānd. 8.12.3) and from the aphorism: "Having attained, manifesta-
tion" (Br. Sū. 4.4.3), it appears as if there is an absolute difference
¹ S.B. 4.4.3, p 968; Bh. B 4.4 3, p. 242; G.B. 4.4.3.

[SŪ. 4. 4. 4.
862 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.]
between one who approaches (viz. the individual soul) and the goal
approached (viz the Lord). With regard to this, the author now
points out.
On the doubt, viz. whether the individual soul, the real nature
of which has become manifest and which has attained the highest
light, realizes itself as distinct from the Highest Self or as non-
distinct from Him being His part,—the prima facie view is: In
accordance with the scriptural and Smṛti texts like: "Stainless,
he approaches the highest identity" (Muṇḍ. 3 1.3), "He enjoys all
desires together with Brahman, the all-knowing" (Taitt. 2.1), '"They
have come to attain similarity with me"' (Gītā 14.2), it realizes itself
as distinct
With regard to it, the author replies: "As non-divided". That
is, the individual soul, freed from all fetters, realizes itself as non-
divided or non-distinct from the Highest Self, the Highest Person.
Why? "On account of being seen," that is, because at that time
(viz. during release) the Highest Self, the soul of all, is intuited by the
freed soul. Through the influence of nescience, the individual soul
comes to have a perverse notion about itself But, when through the
influence of the repeated practice of hearing, thinking and meditating,
the Highest Lord is intuited, all the obstacles to the real knowledge
regarding the real nature of itself as well as of the Highest Self are
immediately destroyed, in accordance with the scriptural text: "The
knot of the heart is broken, all doubts are cut off, and all his works
perish when he who is high and low is seen" (Muṇḍ. 2.2.8). Hence
there can be no doubt whatsoever that the freed soul, a part of the
Lord, having intuited the Soul of all, the Whole, realizes itself, all the
more clearly, as non-distinct from Him. The individual soul, having
Him for its essence, has no distinction from Him; and hence in spite
of a distinction of nature between the individual soul and Brahman,
there is still a non-distinction between them,—a non-distinction which
is compatible with distinction,—just as there is between an attribute
and its substratum. This relation between the individual soul and
Brahman has been demonstrated many times before,¹ and a multitude
of scriptural and Smṛti texts too has been quoted there. We do not
mean to say that there is any non-distinction of nature between the
1 Vide e.g. V.K. 1.1.1; 1.1.7; 1.2.21; 1.4.9; 1.4.20; 1.4.21; 2.1.13; 2.1.21;
2.2.33, etc. etc.

[SŪ. 4. 4. 5.
ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 863
soul and the Lord, otherwise in accordance with scriptural and Smṛti
texts like: ‘ “The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning,
one only and without a second” ’ (Chānd 6.2.1), “All this, verily, is
Brahman” (Chānd. 3.14.1), “Vāsudeva is everything”, “Know every-
thing Kṛṣṇa, the movable and the immovable, all souls and the
universe as Kṛṣṇa” (Mahā. 13.7391 ¹), there must be a non-distinction
of nature between the non-sentient and the Lord too, or,²—because
Scripture is found to refer to distinction and non-distinction. Hence
it is established that the freed soul realizes itself as non-distinct from
the Highest Self, which non-distinction is compatible with distinction.
Here ends the section entitled “Seen as non-divided” (4).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
To understand the word “avibhāga” as absolute identity ³
Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled “Relating
to Brahman”. (Sūtras 5-7)
FIRST OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 5)
SŪTRA 5
“AS RELATING TO BRAHMAN, JAIMINI (THINKS SO), ON ACCOUNT
OF REFERENCE AND SO ON.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The individual soul becomes manifest as endowed with the
attributes “relating to Brahman”, such as freedom from sins and
1 P. 258, line 7, vol. 4. Reading: “Sarvaṁ kṛtsnam . . . viśvam enam”.
2 An alternative explanation of the word “dṛṣṭatvāt”.
3 Ś.B. 4.4.4, p. 969, Bh. B 4.4.4, p. 243.

[SŪ. 4. 4. 6.
864 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 3 ]
so on,—so "Jaimini" thinks, because freedom from sins and the rest,
mentioned in the text about the 'small' ¹ as belonging to Brahman,
are referred to, in the declaration of Prajāpati,² as belonging to the
individual soul as well; and because of eating and so on,³ as indicated
by the words "and so on".
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been said above that having attained the Highest Brahman,
the soul becomes manifest in its own form. Now the question as
to the nature of that form is being considered.
On the doubt, viz whether the individual soul becomes manifest
in its own form, endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins
and so on, or in the form of mere consciousness; or in a form which
is conformable to both kinds of texts,—Jaimini's view is as follows:
The freed soul becomes manifest as endowed with the group of
attributes "relating to Brahman", i.e. with freedom from sins and
the rest which are recorded as belonging to Brahman. Why? "On
account of reference and so on." That is, the attributes of freedom
from sins and so on, mentioned under the meditation on the 'small'
as belonging to Brahman, are referred to as belonging to the individual
soul too in the declaration of Prajāpati, viz.: "The self that is free
from sins" (Chānd. 8.7.1, 3) and so on. By the words "and so on"
eating and the rest, as well as omniscience, etc., are to be understood.
The teacher "Jaimini" thinks so.
SECOND OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 6)
SŪTRA 6
"IN INTELLIGENCE, AS THAT ALONE, ON ACCOUNT OF HAVING THAT
AS THE ESSENCE, SO AUḌULOMI (THINKS)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The individual soul, having approached Brahman who is of the
form of intelligence, becomes manifest in the form of intelligence alone,
¹ Chānd. 8.1.5. ⁠ ² Chānd. 8.7.1, 3. ⁠ ³ Chānd. 8.12.3.

[SŪ. 4. 4. 7.
ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 865
since in the text : "Consisting of intelligence alone" (Bṛh. 4.5.13 ¹),
it is said to have that (viz. intelligence) as its soul.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The individual soul, having approached "intelligence", i.e.
Brahman who is of the form of intelligence, becomes manifest "as
that alone", i e. in the form of intelligence alone. Why ? "On
account of having that as the essence", i e. because the individual
soul has intelligence for its essence, or is nothing but intelligence.
The scriptural text : "Just as a lump of salt is without inside and out-
side, a mass of taste only through and through, so, verily, O! this
soul is without inside and outside, a mass of intelligence only through
and through" (Bṛh. 4.5.13) shows, by using the word 'only', that the
soul is nothing but intelligence and devoid of any other attribute.
The text designating freedom from sins and so on, on the other hand,
simply establishes that the soul is free from changes and so on,—"so
Auḍulomi" thinks.
COMPARISON
Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
They read : "Citi-mātreṇa".²
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 7)
SŪTRA 7
"EVEN SO, ON ACCOUNT OF REFERENCE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THE FORMER, NON-CONTRADICTION, BĀDARĀYAṆA."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Even if the real nature of the soul be established to be intelligence
only, still owing to the manifestation of the real nature of the soul
as possessed of freedom from sins and so on, there is "no contradiction'
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.
² Bh. B. 4 4.6, p. 243, ŚK. B. 4 4.6, p. 485, Parts 10 and 11.

866 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 4. 4. 7.
ADH. 3.]
—so the reverend “Bādarāyaṇa” thinks. Why? “On account of
the reference” to freedom from sins and so on as belonging to the
freed soul.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, the reverend teacher of the Vedas states his own view in
conformity with both the scriptural texts.
“Even so,” i.e. even if the soul be established to be mere intelli-
gence, yet “on account of the existence of the former”, i.e. owing
to the manifestation of the individual soul as intelligence by nature
and as endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest,
there is “no contradiction” with regard to the nature of salvation,
—so the reverend “Bādarāyaṇa” thinks. Why? “On account of
reference,” i.e. because in the declaration of Prajāpati,¹ freedom from
sins and the rest, belonging to Brahman, are referred to as belonging
to the freed soul as well. It cannot be said that in the text: “A mass
of intelligence only” (Bṛh 4.5.13), the word ‘only’ proves that the
attributes of freedom from sins and so on do not belong to the soul,
because they are clearly proved to be belonging to it by another
text: “The self that is free from sins” (Chānd. 8.7.1, 3) and so on,
and because the word ‘only’ simply distinguishes the self from non-
sentient objects,—just as it cannot be said that in the text: “A mass
of taste only” (Bṛh. 4.5.13), the word ‘only’ proves that colour,
touch and so on do not belong to salt, because they are known from
other means of knowledge,² and because the word ‘only’ simply
distinguishes salt from other objects. The purport is that Auḍulomi’s
view, designating the freed soul as devoid of consciousness, is not
acceptable. Hereby other logicians and the rest too, holding the
freed soul to be devoid of consciousness, are refuted. Hence it is
established that having attained the form of highest light, the indivi-
dual soul becomes manifest in its own natural form as endowed with
the attributes of freedom from sins and so on, conformably with both
the scriptural texts.
Here ends the section entitled “Relating to Brahman” (3)
¹ Chānd. 8.7.1.
² Just as a lump of salt has not taste only, but has also colour and so on,
so the soul is not intelligence only, but has other attributes also.

[SŪ. 4. 4. 8.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 867
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
He takes Jaimini to be representing the phenomenal point of
view, Auḍulomi the transcendental point of view, and Bādarāyaṇa
as reconciling these two points of view.¹
――――――
Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled “Will”.
(Sūtras 8-9)
SŪTRA 8
“THROUGH MERE WILL, THAT BEING DECLARED BY SCRIPTURE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The freed soul attains its fathers and so on “through mere will”.
Why? On account of the scriptural text designating that: “If he
comes to desire the world of fathers, through mere wish, his fathers
rise up” (Chānd. 8.2.1 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been said that having attained the form of the highest
light, the individual soul becomes manifest in its real nature as a mass
of intelligence and possessed of the attributes, beginning with freedom
from sins and ending with true desires.³ Hence the freed soul has the
power of fulfilling all its desires. But if the freed soul be devoid of
consciousness, it cannot have such a power. With this in mind, the
author is now showing the freed soul’s power of will.
Referring to the freed soul, it is declared in the Chāndogya:
“He roams about there, laughing, playing, enjoying with women, or
with carriages, or with relatives” (Chānd. 8.12.3). Here the doubt
is, viz. whether the freed soul’s meeting its relatives and so on arises
from its will accompanied by effort, or from mere will. If it be sug-
gested: In ordinary experience it is found that kings and the rest
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ Ś.B. 4.4.7, p. 971. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.
³ Vide Chānd. 8.7.1, 3.

868 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 4. 9.
ADH. 4.]
come to attain the implements of enjoyment through will accom-
panied by effort,—hence from effort accompanied by will alone,—
We reply : There is the attainment of relatives and so on, “through
mere will”. Why ? “On account of that being declared by Scrip-
ture”, i.e. because in the text : “If he comes to desire the world of
fathers, through mere wish his fathers rise up” (Chānd. 8 2.1), it is
declared that the rising up of the fathers and so on is brought about
through will without any reference to any effort, and because it is
not declared that will is accompanied by an effort. The kings and the
rest do not possess the power of fulfilling their desires at will, and
hence in their case it is reasonable to suppose that they attain what is
desired through will accompanied by effort.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
He adds a “tu” after “saṁkalpād eva”.¹ He takes this and all
the following sūtras as referring to the lower knower alone.
———
SŪTRA 9
“FOR THIS VERY REASON, WITHOUT ANOTHER RULER.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The freed soul, which has the Highest Brahman as its essence,
comes to have the attributes of true desires and so on manifest,—and
for this very reason, it becomes “without another ruler”, in accordance
with the scriptural text : “He becomes a self-ruler” (Chānd. 7.25.2 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
As the freed soul's power of fulfilling its desires at will becomes
manifest, so it becomes “without another ruler”, i.e. without any
ruler except the Highest Brahman, the Whole, of which it is a part.
That is, of one, who has Brahman for his essence, who has become
¹ Ś.B. 4.4 8, p. 971. ² R.

[sū. 4. 4 10.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 869
freed from the world, and who has come to have lordship manifest
through the manifestation of the attribute of true desires owing to
the grace of Brahman, there are no other creators and lords like matter,
time, Yama, Indra, and so on, in accordance with the scriptural
text: "He becomes a self-ruler" (Chānd 8.12.1). Hence it is estab-
lished that the freed soul attains relatives and so on immediately
at will.
Here ends the section entitled "Wish" (4).
COMPARISON
All others add a "ca" after "ata eva".
Adhikarana 5: The section entitled "Absence".
(Sūtras 10-16)
SŪTRA 10
"ABSENCE, BĀDARI, FOR (SCRIPTURE) DECLARES SO."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"Bādari" thinks that the body and the rest of the freed soul are
absent, since the scriptural text: "When he becomes bodiless, pleasure
and pain do not touch him" (Chānd. 8.12 1 ¹), "declares" the same
thing.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, it has been established that the freed soul attains relatives
and so on through mere will. Now, with a view to showing that it may
connect itself with a body, sense-organs and so on according to its
will, the author is stating the view of another.
On the doubt, viz. whether the freed soul has a body and the rest,
or not, or whether he has them or not at will,—the teacher "Bādari"
thinks that they are absent, since the scriptural text: "Forsooth,
when he possesses a body, he has no freedom from pleasure and pain;
¹ R, B.

870 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 4. 11.
ADH. 5.]
but when he becomes bodiless, pleasure and pain do not touch him"
(Chānd. 8.12.1) "declares so", i.e. establishes, positively and
negatively, the absence of the body and the rest.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He reads "abhāve" instead of "abhāvam".¹
SECOND OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 11)
SŪTRA 11
"PRESENCE, JAIMINI, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL STATE-
MENT OF VARIETY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"Jaimini" thinks that its body and the rest are present. Why?
"On account of the scriptural statement" of manifoldness: "He
becomes one-fold, three-fold" (Chānd. 7.26.2 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
"Presence", i.e. the teacher "Jaimini" admits the existence of
the freed soul's body and the rest Why? "On account of the
scriptural statement of variety", i.e. because under the doctrine of
the Plenty, in the passage: "He becomes one-fold, becomes three-
fold, five-fold, seven-fold, and nine-fold truly; then, again, he is said
to be eleven, hundred and ten, thousand and twenty" (Chānd. 7.26.2),
its manifoldness is recorded. Such a manifoldness refer to the body
of the free soul, since manifoldness is not possible on the part of the
soul which is atomic and indivisible. The scriptural text about its
having no body, on the other hand, refers only to the body which is
brought about by works.
¹ G.B. 4.4.10, p. 101, Chāp. 4. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

[SŪ. 4. 4. 12.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 871
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 12)
SŪTRA 12
"THEREFROM, BĀDARĀYAṆA (HOLDS), OF BOTH KINDS, AS IN THE
CASE OF THE TWELVE DAYS' SACRIFICE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The reverend "Bādarāyaṇa" thinks that through mere wish,
the freed soul may or may not have a body, just as the twelve days'
sacrifice is a 'satra' or an 'ahīna', in accordance with the texts :
"Those desiring for wealth should resort to the twelve days' sacrifice"¹,
"The priest is to offer the twelve days' sacrifice for one who desires
for progeny"². So is the case here.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the author states his own conclusion
"Therefrom," i.e through mere wish, the soul is "of both
kinds", so the reverend "Bādarāyaṇa" thinks. That is, the freed
soul may or may not have bodies and the rest according to its will.
This being so, none of the texts is contradicted "As in the case of
the twelve days' sacrifice," i.e. just as the twelve days' sacrifice is of
two kinds owing to the difference of wish. In accordance with the
injunction of 'resorting' : "Those who are desirous of prosperity
should resort to the twelve days' sacrifice", it is a 'satra'; while in
accordance with the injunction of offering : "A priest should offer
the twelve days' sacrifice for one who desires progeny", it is an 'ahīna'.
So is the case here.
Or ³, the word "therefrom" is to be understood as "on account
of two texts". There is a text designating the enjoyment of one
who is bodiless, viz. "Having perceived these objects of desire by
mind alone who enjoys in this world of Brahman" (Chānd. 8.12.5);
and there is a text designating the enjoyment of one who has a body,
viz. "He becomes one-fold" (Chānd. 7.26.2) and so on.
¹ R, Bh. ² Op. cit.
³ An alternative explanation of the term "atah".

[sū. 4. 4. 13.
872 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
SŪTRA 13
“ IN THE ABSENCE OF A BODY, AS IN THE CASE OF THE INTER-
MEDIATE STAGE (VIZ. DREAM), ON ACCOUNT OF POSSIBILITY ”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
As “in the absence of a body” created by itself, enjoyment is
possible on the part of the freed soul by means of the body and the
rest created by the Lord during dreams,—so there is no fixed rule
that the body and the rest are to be created by the freed soul itself
Vedānta-kaustubha
As “in the absence of a body”, i.e. in the absence of a body created
by itself, the enjoyment of sportive pleasures is possible on the part
of the freed soul by means of the group of instruments created by the
Lord, so there is no fixed rule that the freed soul creates its body
and the rest through mere wish That is, the freed soul, having true
desires, is able to create the world of fathers and the rest, as well as
its own body and the like, yet it enjoys sportive pleasures by means
of the instruments created by the Highest Person in sport. It has
been demonstrated above ¹ that during the state of dream, the soul
in bondage enjoys chariots and the rest created by the Lord alone.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
He interprets the sūtra thus : “ In the absence of a body, (the
freed soul’s objects of desire, such as, fathers and so on are mere
perceptions and not actual objects), as during dreams, on account
of possibility ”. ²
Bhāskara
According to him, the sūtra means that in the absence of a body,
the freed soul enjoys pleasure and so on by the mind, as does the soul
in bondage during its state of dream.

¹ Vide V.K. 3.2.1. ² Sk. B. 4.4.13.

[SŪ. 4. 4. 14.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 873
SŪTRA 14
"IN (ITS) PRESENCE, AS DURING THE STATE OF WAKING."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
As in the presence of the body and the rest created by itself
too, the enjoyment of sportive pleasures is possible on the part of the
freed soul,—so it sometimes creates these through its own wish too,
corresponding to the sport of the Lord.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The words 'on account of possibility' are to be supplied As in
the presence of the body and the rest created by itself, the enjoyment
of sportive pleasures on the part of the freed soul is possible, "as
during the state of waking", so there is also no fixed rule that the
freed soul itself never creates its own body and the rest. Just as a
man in the waking state creates,—so far as it lies within his power,—
sons, houses, chariots and the like,—included within the sphere of His
creation,—with the help of man, wood, stone and the rest, and enjoys
them,—so the freed soul too having, through the Lord's grace, the
power of realizing its wishes, creates, in accordance with His sport,¹
fathers, relative and the like, as well as its body and the rest, through
its own wish, corresponding to His wish, and enjoys His sportive
pleasures,—this is the sense.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
They interpret the sūtra thus: When there is a body, the objects
desired by the freed soul have real existence.²
1 Cf. the Sū. "Loka-vat tuhta-kaivalyam" All objects are created by the
Lord in sport. So the objects created by a freed soul conform to such sportive
creative designs of the Lord.
2 Ś.B. 4.4.14, p. 974; Bh. B 4.4.14, p 246

[SŪ. 4. 4. 15.
874 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 5.]
SŪTRA 15
"THE ENTERING (INTO MANY BODIES IS) AS IN THE CASE OF A
LAMP, FOR (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS THUS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The soul’s "entering" into many bodies takes place through its
attribute of knowledge, as of the lamp through its ray,—"for" the
scriptural text: "It is capable of infinity" (Śvet. 5.9 ¹) "shows thus".
Vedānta-kaustubha
Apprehending the objection, viz. The manifoldness, mentioned
in the text: "He becomes three-fold" (Chānd. 7.26.2) and so on, is
not possible on the part of the freed soul even though it may have a
body, since it is never possible for one and the same soul, which is
atomic by nature, to pervade many bodies,—the author replies:
"The entering" of the freed soul, atomic in size and abiding
within one body, into many bodies,—i.e. its complete entering into
those bodies as their soul with the thought: 'This is my body and that
as well'—is possible through its attribute of knowledge. "As in the
case of a lamp." That is, just as a lamp, though placed in one place,
pervades many places through its attribute, viz. rays, so is the case
here. "For thus" Scripture shows, viz. "The individual soul is to
be known as a hundredth part of the point of a hair, divided a hundred
times, yet it is capable of infinity" (Śvet. 5.9).
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
They interpret the sūtra a little differently, viz. Just as one lamp
multiplies itself into many lamps—all lighted from the original lamp,
—so the freed soul multiplies itself into many bodies, since it has the
power of realizing its wishes.²
¹ R.
² Ś.B. 4.4.15, p. 975; Bh. B 4.4.15, p. 247.

[sū. 4. 4. 16.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 875
SŪTRA 16
"(THE TEXT) REFERS EITHER TO MERGING INTO ONE'S OWN SELF
OR TO ATTAINING, FOR (THIS IS) MANIFESTED."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The text : "Embraced by the intelligent self, he does not know
anything that is outside, nor anything inside" (Bṛh. 4.3.21 ¹), how-
ever, does not refer to the freed soul, but "refers either" to deep
sleep or to death. In the texts. "Verily, now he does not know him-
self as : 'I am he', nor indeed the things here" (Chānd. 8.11.1 ²),
"Having arisen from these elements, he perishes into them alone"
(Bṛh. 4.5.13 ³), "Verily, with this celestial eye, the mind, he sees these
desires" (Chānd. 8.12.5), the soul's absence of knowledge during these
two states (viz. deep sleep and death), as well as its omniscience during
the state of release, are "manifested" or clearly declared by Scripture.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. It cannot be said that the individual soul
can abide in many bodies even by means of its attribute of knowledge,
since in the text : "Embraced by the intelligent self, he knows nothing
that is outside nor anything inside" (Bṛh. 4.3.21), one who has
attained the Highest Self is declared to be devoid of any knowledge
of particular objects,—the author replies :
This text "refers either to merging in one's own self or to attain-
ing", i.e. either to deep sleep or to death. "For (this) is manifested",
i.e. because the soul's absence of all knowledge of particular objects
during deep sleep and death, as well as its omniscience during the
state of release, are "manifested" or clearly declared by Scripture
itself. The text : "Verily, now he does not know himself as : 'I am
he', nor indeed the things here. He has gone to utter annihilation.
I do not see any good in it" (Chānd. 8.11.1), declares that the soul
has no knowledge of particular objects during deep sleep. And the
text : "Having arisen from these elements, he perishes into them alone"
(Bṛh. 4.5.13), declares that it has no knowledge of particular objects
when dead. The word 'perishes' means that its knowledge ceases to be
¹ R, Śk, B. ² R, Śk, B. ³ Ś, Bh, Śk
26

876 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 4. 17.
ADH. 6.]
manifest. Finally, the following texts declare that the soul is omni-
scient during its state of release: “Verily, with this celestial eye, the
mind, he sees desires, and enjoys in this world of Brahman” (Chānd.
8.12.5), “Verily, the seer sees everything, attains everything every-
where” (Chānd. 7.26.2). Hence it is perfectly reasonable to hold
that the freed soul possesses the instruments, such as the body and the
rest, created by the Lord; may have, according to will, a body or
not or many bodies; and is omniscient.
Here ends the section entitled “Absence” (5).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
He interprets the word “sampatti” as ‘final release’. His view
is that the lower knowers who meditate on the qualified Brahman do
not attain kaivalya or absolute isolation as the soul gets during deep
sleep and release, but only a particular condition when the knowledge
of difference still persists.¹
Adhikaraṇa 6: The section entitled “Exclusive
of the activities in connection with the Uni-
verse”. (Sūtras 17—22).
SŪTRA 17
“EXCLUSIVE OF THE ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE UNI-
VERSE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER, AND ON ACCOUNT
OF NON-PROXIMITY.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The lordship of the freed soul consists in something other than
the activities in connection with the creation and the rest of the
¹ Ś.B. 4.4.16, p. 976.
26B

[SŪ. 4. 4. 17.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 877
universe Why? Because in the text: "From whom, verily, these
beings arise" (Tait 3.1 1), the Highest Brahman is referred to as the
subject-matter, and because the individual soul has no place therein.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the question is being considered, viz. of what nature is the
lordship of the freed soul, which has thus come to attain the highest
identity
The doubt is, viz Whether the lordship of the freed soul consists
in the activities in connection with universe or is exclusive of it. The
prima facie view is that like the Highest Person, the lordship of the
freed soul too consists in the activities in connection with the creation,
maintenance and so on of the entire universe
With regard to this, we reply: "Exclusive of the activities in
connection with the universe". That is, the lordship of the freed
soul does not consist in the activities in connection with the controlling
of the universe, such as its creation and so on. But the activities
in connection with the creation of the universe belong to the Highest
Brahman alone. Why? "On account of subject-matter," i.e.
because in the texts designating creation snd so on, viz. "From whom,
verily, those beings arise" (Tait 3.1) and so on, He alone is the subject-
matter; "also on account of non-proximity", i.e. because in the texts
designating creation and so on, the freed soul is never mentioned as
the creator and the rest of the universe.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
As pointed out above, he refers all these sūtras to the lower
knowers only.
Bhāskara
He too refers this and the following sūtras to those who attain the
effected Brahman only.
1 R, Śk, B.

878 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 4. 18.
ADH. 6.]
SŪTRA 18
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECT TEACHING, NO,
(WE REPLY:) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT WHICH ABIDES WITHIN
THE SPHERE OF THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH SPECIAL OFFICES BEING
MENTIONED.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected: Since by the scriptural text: “He becomes a
self-ruler. He comes to have freedom of movement in all the worlds”
(Chānd. 7.25.2 ¹) the freed soul is proved to have the activities in
connection with the universe, the stated view: “Exclusive of the
activities in connection with the universe” (Br. Sū. 4.4.17) is not
tenable,—
We reply: “no”, since that text simply declares that the objects
of enjoyments inhering in the worlds of Hiraṇyagarbha and the rest
are the objects of the freed soul’s enjoyment.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected: The view, stated above, that the lordship of the
freed soul is exclusive of the activities in connection with the universe,
is not tenable. Why? “On account of the direct teaching”: “He
becomes a self-ruler. He comes to have freedom of movement in all
the worlds” (Chānd. 7.25.2). The word ‘direct’ means ‘Scriptural’.
By Scripture, i.e. by the Chāndogya and the rest, the lordship of the
freed soul is taught as consisting in the activities in connection with
the universe,—on account of that,—
We reply: “no”. Why? “On account of that which abides
within the spheres of those who are entrusted with special offices
being mentioned,” i.e. because “that which abides within the spheres
of those who are entrusted with special offices”, or the objects of
enjoyment inhering in the worlds of Hiraṇyagarbha and so on too
“are mentioned”, i.e. established, by the Chāndogya-text, to be the
objects of the freed soul’s enjoyment.
1 R.

[SŪ. 4. 4. 19. VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 879
ADH. 6.]
COMPARISON.
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz. The soul who has attained the effected
Brahman has not unlimited lordship, since it depends on the Lord
abiding in the disc of the sun and the rest.¹
SŪTRA 19
"AND THAT WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE, FOR THUS (SCRIP-
TURE) DECLARES (ITS) EXISTENCE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The freed soul intuits Brahman alone, free from the changes of
birth and the rest, an ocean of natural, inconceivable and infinite
attributes, and possessed of super-human power, "for" Scripture
declares the soul's "existence" during salvation ² to be "thus":
"For when, verily, he finds fearlessness as a foundation in that which
is invisible, incorporal, undefined, unsupported, then he has gone to
fearlessness" (Tait. 2.7 ³), "Verily, he is the essence, for on attaining
this essence one becomes blissful" (Tait. 2.7).
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been said the lordship of the freed soul is exclusive of the
activities in connection with the universe. On the enquiry: In what,
then, does it consist?—the author now shows that the lordship of
the freed soul consists in a direct intuition of the Highest Brahman,
possessed of super-human power, and thereby rejects the view—sug-
gested by the statement made above that the objects of enjoyment,
inhering in the spheres of those who are entrusted with special offices,
are the freed soul's objects of enjoyment,—viz. that the freed soul is
just like the soul in bondage.
¹ Ś.B. 4.4.18, pp. 977-978; Bh. B. 4.4.8, p. 248.
² C.S.S. reads "mukta-sthiti", (p. 91), also Brindāban ed. (p 1354).
³ R.