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

[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.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 28.
80 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.]
Sū. 1.1.26), but "this is so also because" (the four feet, viz.) beings,
earth, body and heart,¹ are "appropriate" on the part of Brahman,
the Lord (alone)
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason "also", in the text 'The Gāyatrī, verily, is all
this' (Chānd. 3 12.1), the object denoted by the term 'Gāyatrī' is
Brahman. For what reason? "Because the designation of beings
and so on as the feet is appropriate", i e. also because the designation,
viz. that the Gāyatrī has four feet,—called beings, earth, body and
heart,—is appropriate on the part of Brahman alone, and not on the
part of the Gāyatrī metre which is but a collection of letters
SŪTRA 28
"IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF
TEACHING, (BRAHMAN IS) NOT (RECOGNIZED), (WE REPLY:) NO,
ON ACCOUNT OF THERE BEING NO CONTRADICTION EVEN IN BOTH
CASES."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that first the heaven is referred to as a 'locus', and
then again, as a 'limit', and there being such "a difference of teaching",
Brahman is "not" recognized,—
(We reply·) "no". Why? "Because there is no contradiction,"
in both the cases, with regard to the oneness of Brahman (i.e in
point of proving the very same Brahman).
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected:—The heaven is referred to as a 'locus', by the
locative case-ending, in the previous case, viz. : 'The three feet of him
are the immortal in the heaven (divi)' (Chānd. 3 12 6), but as a
'limit', by the ablative case-ending, in the text 'Now, the light that
shines higher than the heaven (divaḥ)' (Chānd. 3 13.7). Thus,
"on account of the difference of teaching", resulting from the difference
of the case-endings, Brahman is not recognized in the text concerning
the light (viz. Chānd. 3.13.7)—
¹ Vide Chānd. 3 12.1–4.

[Sū. 1. 1. 29.
ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 81
(We reply.) Such an objection cannot be raised. Why? "In
both the cases", i.e. in the case of the locative as well as in the case
of the ablative, the oneness of the root-meaning, which is the main
thing, is not set aside by the meaning of the case-endings, which is
subsidiary only; just as the expressions: 'A hawk on the top of the
tree', 'A hawk above the tree' (mean the same thing). Hence, it is
established that the object denoted by the term "light" is the Supreme
Brahman alone, possessed of unsurpassed splendour.
Here ends the section entitled 'The light' (10)
Adhikarana 11. The section entitled 'Indra and
the vital-breath' (Sūtras 29-32)
SŪTRA 29
"(BRAHMAN IS DENOTED BY THE WORD) VITAL-BREATH, ON
ACCOUNT OF INTELLIGIBILITY IN THAT WAY"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text: 'I am the vital-breath' (Kauṣ. 3.2¹) and so on,
the object denoted by the term 'vital-breath' and the rest, is the
Highest Self, because the qualities of highest auspiciousness, endless-
ness and so on are intelligible only if the Highest Self be understood.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, by showing, in the following four aphorisms, that the
Kauṣītaki-texts all refer to Brahman, the author refutes the view that
words like 'vital-breath', 'Indra' and so on mean the individual soul.
In the Kauṣītaki-brāhmaṇa-upaniṣad, the Pratardana-vidyā is
recorded, beginning: 'Pratardana, verily, the son of Divodāsa, arrived
by fighting and valour at the beloved abode of Indra' (Kauṣ. 3.1).
It is said here: Being told by Indra: '"I will give you a boon"' (Kauṣ.
3 1), Pratardana said: '"Do you yourself choose (a boon) for me,²
what you consider to be the most beneficial for mankind"' (Kauṣ.
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
² The word 'varam' is not included in the original text.
6

[SŪ. 1. 1. 29.
82 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.]
3.1), i.e. having considered the boon 'yourself', 'choose', i e. give that
'to me' Thus told by Pratardana, Indra said " 'I am the vital-
breath, the intelligent Self Worship me, as life, as immortality' "
(Kauṣ 3.2); and again, later on. ' "The vital-breath, verily, is the in-
telligent self that taking hold of this body, makes it stand up' "
(Kauṣ. 3 3), " 'Let none desire to enquire after speech, but let him
know the speaker' " (Kauṣ. 3 8), and in conclusion also: ' "Now,
this vital-breath itself, forsooth, is the intelligent self, bliss, ageless
and immortal' " (Kauṣ. 3.8). Here, the doubt is, viz. whether a
certain individual soul is denoted by the words 'Indra' and 'vital-
breath', or the Highest Self ? What is reasonable here ?
The prima facie view is As the word 'Indra' is well-known to
be denoting an individual soul entrusted with a certain office, and as
there is a text regarding the object denotable by the term 'Indra', viz.
" 'I am the vital-breath' " (Kauṣ. 3.2),—the word 'vital-breath' also
denotes 'Indra'. From the text: " 'Worship me as life, as immor-
tality' " (Kauṣ. 3.2), he alone is known here as the object to be
worshipped.
With regard to this, the correct conclusion is as follows "The
vital-breath", i e the meaning of the word 'vital-breath' and what
is denoted by the words 'Indra' and the rest accompanying it, are the
Highest Self alone. Why? ' "On account of intelligibility in that
way," ' i e. because qualities like 'highest auspiciousness', 'being the
intelligent self', 'bliss', 'agelessness' and the rest are intelligible ' "in
that way" ', i.e. only if the Highest Self be understood. Thus, first,
it is said in the beginning 'The son of Divodāsa went to the beloved
abode of Indra' ¹ (Kauṣ. 3.1), where Indra, conceiving the dependence
of his own self on Brahman for its existence and activity, did not
think: 'I am Indra'; but, being merged in the bliss of Brahman and
conceiving that the sentient and the non-sentient objects have Brahman
as their self, reflected: 'Brahman, alone, is all this, I am Brahman';
and looked upon even those who had committed sins as his own self.
And, the object to be attained by the Self (viz. Indra) and by those
who were equal to the Self (viz. all other beings whom Indra looked
upon as his self) was Brahman alone; the means thereto being simply
the worship of His feet. Indra told to Pratardana, who had arrived
there, i.e. at his so-beloved place: 'Choose a boon'. And, thus
¹ The word 'tāvat' is not included in the quotation.

[sū. 1. 1. 30.
ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 83
requested, Pratardana too, wishing for the highest goal of men, said
to him, who was very modest, free from pride, and desirous of inti-
mating the means to the highest goal of men, '"Do you yourself
choose a boon for me"' and so on. Thereupon, the vital-breath was
taught to Pratardana as the object to be worshipped, in the passage:
'"I am the vital-breath"' (Kauṣ. 3 2) and so on. How can the
vital-breath, taught thus as the highest goal of men, be an individual
soul? How can the text: '"Worship me"' (Kauṣ. 3.2) be intelligible
except as designating the worship of the Supreme Brahman? The
individual soul, the witness of the three states ¹, being a part and not
fit to be attained by another individual soul, is not attainable through
the intuition of a knower And (the adjective) 'most beneficial' (in
the text '"What you consider to be the most beneficial for mankind"')
does not apply to anything else except to the attainment of Brahman.
(The qualities like) 'being the intelligent self', 'bliss', 'agelessness',
and 'immortality', mentioned in the passages '"Worship me as life,
as immortality"' ² (Kauṣ. 2.3), 'This alone, verily, is the intelligent
self, bliss, ageless, immortal' (Kauṣ 3 8), fit in only if Brahman
be understood, and not otherwise. Hence, the words 'Indra', 'vital-
breath' and so on were used by the celebrated Indra with a view to
designating Brahman, and not his own self.
SŪTRA 30
"IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (BRAHMAN IS) NOT (DENOTED), ON
ACCOUNT OF THE SELF OF THE SPEAKER BEING TAUGHT, (WE REPLY:)
BECAUSE THERE IS A MULTITUDE OF REFERENCES TO THE SELF IN
IT"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected: The object denoted by the words 'vital-breath'
and the rest cannot be Brahman. Why? Because in the text:
'"Know me alone"' (Kauṣ 3.1 ³), the very self of the speaker is
taught,—
¹ Viz waking, dream, deep sleep.
² Correct quotation translated. 'tam mām'
³ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 30.
84 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 11.]
(We reply:) ' "In this"' chapter, there is a multitude of references
to the Highest Self. Hence, the object denoted by the words 'vital-
breath', 'Indra' and the rest is the Highest Self alone.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected. In the aphorism 'The vital-breath, on account
of intelligibility in that way' (Br. Sū. 1.1.29), it has been said that
the object denoted by the words 'vital-breath', 'Indra' and so on, is
Brahman That is not the case. Why? '"On account of the self
of the speaker being taught,"' i.e. because the very self of the speaker,
viz Indra, who says at first: '"Know me alone"' (Kauṣ. 3.1), and
later on: '"I am the vital-breath, the intelligent self"' (Kauṣ 3 2),—
his very individual character, well-known from the passage '"I killed
the three-headed son of Tvaṣtṛ, I delivered the Arunmukhas, the
ascetics, to the wolves "' (Kauṣ. 3.1),—is taught as the object to be
worshipped. Thus, the introductory text here refers to the individual
soul. This being so, the concluding text too, viz. 'Bliss, ageless,
immortal' (Kauṣ. 3.8), should refer to it,—
We reply: '"Because there is a multitude of references to the self
in it"', i.e. "because", i.e. certainly, "in it", viz in this chapter, there
is "a multitude of references to the self", i.e. numerous references to
that which is above the (individual) self, viz. the Highest Self; that
means, in this chapter there are (mentioned) a great many attributes
of the Highest Self. Hence there cannot be any reference to any
individual soul like Indra here,—this is the resulting meaning. Thus,
the worship of what is the most beneficial, mentioned in the introduc-
tory text: '"What you consider to be the most beneficial for mankind"'
(Kauṣ. 3.1), is nothing but the worship of the Highest Self, because
He alone is the most auspicious Being, as declared by another scriptural
text: 'By knowing Him alone, one surpasses death; there is no other
way to salvation' (Śvet. 6.15) Similarly, making one do good or
evil deeds as declared by the text: 'He alone makes one, whom he
wishes to lead up from these worlds, perform good action. He alone
makes one, whom he wishes to lead downwards from these worlds,
perform evil action' ¹ (Kauṣ. 3.8), is a quality of the Highest Self
alone. Likewise, being the support of all sentient and non-sentient
¹ Correct quotation translated. 'Eṣa hy eva enam . . . . , eṣa u eva
enam asādhu karma kārayati taṃ yam adho ninīṣate'. Vide Kauṣ. 3.8, p. 130

[sū. 1. 1. 31.
ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 85
objects,—depicted by the term 'elements of intelligence' in the text
which, beginning thus: 'The vital-breath alone is the intelligent self
that, taking hold of the body, makes it stand up' (Kauṣ. 3. 3), goes
on: 'As of a chariot the rim of the wheel is fixed on the spokes, and
the spokes are fixed on the nave, even so these elements of being are
fixed on the elements of intelligence, and the elements of intelligence
are fixed on the vital-breath' (Kauṣ. 3.8);—as well as bliss and the
rest, mentioned in the text: 'Now, this vital-breath, forsooth, is the
intelligent self, bliss, ageless, immortal' (Kauṣ. 3.8), are qualities of
the Highest Self alone. 'Being the Self' and 'being the object to
be known', mentioned in conclusion in the text: '"Let one know:
'He is my self'"' (Kauṣ. 3.8), are also qualities of the Highest Self.
Hence, a great many attributes of the Highest Self being mentioned
here, the Highest Self alone is denoted by the terms 'Indra', 'vital-
breath' and the rest.
SŪTRA 31
"BUT THE INSTRUCTION (GIVEN BY INDRA ABOUT HIMSELF)
(IS JUSTIFIABLE) THROUGH SCRIPTURAL INSIGHT, AS IN THE CASE
OF VĀMADEVA."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Realizing that everything had Brahman for its soul, Indra
properly said "through scriptural insight": '"Know me alone"'
(Kauṣ. 3.1¹)—the scriptural text to this effect is: 'What sorrow,
what delusion is there of him who perceives the unity' (Īśā. 7²)—,
just as Vāmadeva said: '"I was Manu and the sun"' (Bṛh. 1.4.10;
Ṛg. V. 4. 26. 1a³).
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz.: Why then did Indra being one, (viz. an
individual soul) taught himself as another (viz. Brahman) in the
passage: '"Worship me"' (Kauṣ. 3.2)?—it is replied here:—
No such objection can be raised. Just as a highly favoured royal
servant says to the subjects, even like the king himself, 'I am your
1 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. 2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.
3 P. 285, line 8. Not quoted by others.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 31
86 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.]
ruler to be worshipped by you', so is the case here. "But through
scriptural insight." That is, in the passages, '"Know me alone"'
(Kauṣ. 3. 1), '"Worship me"' (Kauṣ. 3. 2), and so on, Indra, who is
only an individual soul, taught the Highest Self as his own self, conse-
quent of knowing, "through scriptural insight", i.e. from scriptural
texts, that the Supreme Brahman is the inner controller and the soul
of all. The scriptural texts are the following:—'All this has that for
its self, that is true, that is the self, Brahman'¹ (Chānd. 6. 7. 8,
6. 9. 4; 6.10.3; 6.11.3; 6.12.3, 6.13.3; 6.14.3, 6.15.3; 6.16.3),
'All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him, disappearing into
him, breathing in him' (Chānd. 3. 1.4.), '"You have, truly, attained
freedom from fear, O Janaka!"' (Bṛh. 4. 2. 4), 'Who knows himself:
"I am Brahman"'² (Bṛh. 1.4. 10), 'Entered within, the ruler of men,
the soul of all' (Tait. Ār. 3. 11. 2³), 'This is your soul, the inner con-
troller, immortal' (Bṛh. 3. 7.3, etc.) and so on. Compare the case
of Vāmadeva, who intuiting the Highest Self, the Inner Controller of
all, through scriptural insight, spoke of Him alone, when he said:
'Seeing this, the sage Vāmadeva understood: "I was Manu and the
sun"' (Bṛh. 1.4.10), 'I am the wise Kakṣīvān sage' (Ṛg. V. 4.26.1⁴).
Hence the teaching: '"Know me alone"' (Kauṣ. 3.1), etc. is, indeed,
proper.
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
He gives two alternative explanations, the last of which tallies
with the explanation given by Nimbārka.⁵
¹ The word 'Brahman' is not included in the original texts.
² Correct quotation: 'ya evam vedāham Brahmāsmī'. Vide Brh. 1.4. 10,
p. 45.
³ P. 181.
⁴ The full quotation in Ṛg.V. is: 'I was Manu and the sun, I am the
wise Kakṣīvān sage'—said by Indra.
⁵ ŚK. 1.1.31 (p. 288, Part 3).

[sū. 1. 1. 32.
ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 87
SŪTRA 32
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE CHARACTERISTIC
MARKS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL AND THE CHIEF VITAL-BREATH,
(BRAHMAN IS) NOT (MEANT), (WE REPLY.) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF
THE THREEFOLDNESS OF MEDITATION, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING
REFERRED TO (ELSEWHERE), ON ACCOUNT OF (ITS) SUITABILITY
HERE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected. On account of the characteristic marks of the
individual soul, mentioned in the passages:—‘Let none desire to
enquire into speech, but let him desire to know the speaker’ (Kaus.
3 8¹), ‘I slew the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭṛ’ (Kaus 3 1²); as well
as on account of the characteristic marks of the chief vital-breath,
mentioned in the passage—‘The vital-breath alone is the intelligent
self that taking hold of the body makes it stand up’ (Kaus 3 3³),
Brahman is not referred to here,—
(We reply.) No, “because of the threefoldness of the meditation”
on Brahman, in accordance with the different grades of meditating
devotees, viz. (meditation on Brahman) as the Inner Controller of the
group of individual souls, as the Inner Controller of the non-sentient
objects, and as different from them both, “because it is referred to”
(elsewhere); “because it is suitable here” also.
Here ends the first quarter of the first chapter in the Vedānta-
pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā-texts,
and composed by the reverend Nimbārka
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected: Brahman cannot be denoted here by the words
‘vital-breath’ and the rest. Why? “On account of the character-
istic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath.” First,
the characteristic marks of the individual soul are stated in the
passages · ‘Let none desire to enquire after speech, but let him desire to
know the speaker’ (Kaus. 3.8), ‘ “I delivered the Arunmukhas, the
1 Ś, R, Bh, B. 2 R, ŚK, Bh, B. 3 Ś, R, Bh, B.

[SŪ 1. 1 32,
88 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.]
ascetics, to the wolves'” (Kaus. 3 1) and so on; and the characteristic
marks of the chief vital-breath are stated in the passage ‘Now, verily,
the vital-breath alone is the intelligent soul that taking hold of this
body makes it stand up’ (Kaus. 3.1). Hence it is not possible that
Brahman is referred to here,—
(We, reply:) “No.” Why ? “On account of the threefoldness
of meditation, on account of being referred (elsewhere), on account
of (its) suitability here.” That is, the designation of Brahman by
such and such terms (viz. Indra and the vital-breath) is for the sake
of teaching the threefoldness of meditation, just as elsewhere three
kinds of meditation on Brahman are referred to. There (viz. in the
Taittirīya-upaniṣad) Brahman is recommended to be meditated on
in His own nature in the passages: ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge and
infinite’ (Tait. 2.1), ‘Brahman is bliss’ (Tait. 3.6); and to be medi-
tated on as the inner soul of the sentient and the non-sentient, as well
as the soul of all in the passages ‘Having created that, he entered into
that very thing. Having entered it, He became real and that, defined
and undefined, based and non-based, knowledge and non-knowledge’
(Tait. 2.6). In the same manner “on account of its suitability”,
i.e. on account of the suitability of such a threefoldness, “here”,
i.e. in the Pratardanavidyā as well, there is no divergence among the
texts, the whole group of texts referring to one and the same Brahman.
This should be understood here: If a text be ascertained from the
introduction and the rest to be referring to Brahman, then if there
be marks of anything else therein, those, too, should be referred to
Brahman, who is the inner controller of that thing, who possesses it
as His power, and who is the object to be meditated on. Hence, it is
established that the object indicated by the words ‘Indra’, ‘vital-
breath’ and the rest is the Highest Self.
Here ends the section entitled ‘Indra and the vital-breath’ (11).
——————
Here ends the first section of the first chapter in the Vedānta-
kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, and composed
by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of
the reverend Nimbārka, the founder and teacher of the sect of the
reverend Sanatkumāra.

[SŪ. 1. 1. 32.
ADH 11.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 89
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. Reading same. He gives
two alternative explanations of the second part of the sūtra, viz. the
reply to the objection, thus.—
(1) ‘If it be objected . . . , (then, we reply:)—On
account of the threefoldness of meditation, (i.e. your interpretation
would involve the assumption of devout meditation of three kinds,
viz. on the individual soul, on the chief vital-breath and on Brahman,
but one and the same section cannot teach three different kinds of
things). (Moreover, the word “vital-breath” must denote Brahman
here,) on account of (that meaning) being accepted (elsewhere), on
account of connection here (i.e in the passage itself characteristic
marks of Brahman are mentioned). (Hence the conclusion is that
Brahman is the topic of the whole chapter.)’ This interpretation is
different from Nimbārka’s interpretation.
Or, ‘If it be objected . . . , (then, we reply:) (the charac-
teristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath are not
out of place in a chapter which deals with Brahman) on account of
the threefoldness of meditation (i e. because this chapter aims simply
at advocating thereby the three ways of meditating on Brahman, viz.
under the aspect of the prāṇa, under the aspect of prajñā, and in
itself, according as Brahman is viewed either with reference to the
two limiting adjuncts, or in itself); because (in other passages also we
find that meditation on Brahman is) made dependant (on Brahman
being qualified by limiting adjuncts—cf. Chānd. 3.14 2); because
(the hypothesis that Brahman is meditated on under three aspects)
is perfectly consistent here (i e. in the prāṇa chapter ¹). This inter-
pretation too does not tally with Nimbārka’s interpretation, for
Nimbārka does not hold that the sentient and the non-sentient—
under the aspects of which Brahman is meditated on—are limiting
adjuncts of Brahman.-
Rāmānuja
Reading and interpretation same. According to Rāmānuja, the
three kinds of meditation are:— (1) Meditation on Brahman in His
own nature as the cause of the world, (2) meditation on Brahman as
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
1 Ś B. 1.1 31, pp 255 ff.

[sū. 1. 1. 32
90 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 11.]
having the totality of the enjoying souls as His body (i e. as the inner
soul of the sentient), and (3) meditation on Brahman as having the
objects and means of enjoyment for His body (i e as the inner soul
of the non-sentient) ¹
Bhāskara
This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. Reading different—viz
omits the portion ‘Āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt’. Two alternative
interpretations given, the first (the author’s own view) exactly like
Śaṃkara’s first explanation; the second (the view of others: ‘apare
tu’, etc.) like Nimbārka’s explanation ²
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading and interpretation same. He points out, exactly after
Rāmānuja, that the three kinds of meditations on the Lord are—
svarūpeṇa, bhoktṛ-śarīreṇa and bhogya-rūpeṇa.³
Baladeva
This is sūtra 31 in Baladeva. His interpretation is like Śaṃkara’s
first interpretation.⁴
Résumé
The first quarter of the first chapter contains.—
(1) 32 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka;
(2) 31 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṃkara;
(3) 32 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja;
(4) 31 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara;
(5) 32 sūtras and 12 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha;
(6) 31 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva.
Śaṃkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva omit sūtra 9 in Nimbārka’s
commentary.
¹ Śrī. B. 1.1.32, p. 224, vol. 1.:—‘Nikhila-kāraṇa-bhūtasya Brahmaṇaḥ
svarūpeṇānusandhānam, bhoktṛ-varga-śarīrakatvānusandhānam, bhogya-bhogopa-
karaṇa-śarīrakatvānusandhānañ ceti trividham anusandhānam upadeṣṭum ity-
arthaḥ’
² Bh. B. 1.1.31, pp 35-36.
³ ŚK. B. 1.1.32, pp. 291-92, Part 3.
⁴ G.B 1.1.31.

FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyāya)
SECOND QUARTER (Pāda)
Adhikarana 1: The section entitled ‘Celebrity
everywhere’. (Sūtras 1-8)
SŪTRA 1
“(THAT WHICH CONSISTS OF MIND IS BRAHMAN), BECAUSE OF THE
TEACHING OF WHAT IS CELEBRATED EVERYWHERE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Beginning ‘All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from him
disappearing into him and breathing in him,—tranquil, let one medi-
tate on him thus’ (Chānd. 3.14.1 ¹), Scripture continues: ‘Consisting
of mind, having the vital breath for his body’ (Chānd 3.14.2 ²).
Here, the object which is to be meditated on as consisting of mind is
to be understood as the Highest self, the cause of all, and not as the
individual soul. Why? Because the highest self alone, celebrated
in all the Vedāntas, is taught in the above passages, viz. ‘All this,
verily, is Brahman’ (Chānd. 3.14.1)
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, in the first section, the concordance of the scriptural texts
with regard to the holy Lord Vāsudeva has been shown,—He who is
the object of enquiry, the greatest Being, the cause of the origin and
‘the rest of the world, having Scripture for His sole proof, omniscient,
without an equal or a superior and the one mass of infinite auspicious
qualities. Now, in the following two sections, the reverend teacher
of the Veda is showing that those texts,—some of which indistinctly
indicate the individual soul and the rest, and some of which distinctly
do so,—all refer to Him alone.
The Chāndogas record the following ‘All this, verily, is Brahman,
emanating from him, disappearing into him, and breathing in him,—
tranquil, let one meditate (on him) thus. Now, a person consists of
¹ Ś, R, Bh, B.      ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 1. 2. 1.
92 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.]
determination. According to what his determination is in this world,
so does he become on departing hence Let him form a determination.
He who consists of mind, has the vital-breath for his body, is of the
form of light' (Chānd. 3 14.1-2 ¹) and so on. Here, a doubt arises,
viz. whether the individual soul ² should be understood as the object
to be meditated on, possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind
and the rest, or the Highest self. What is reasonable here ?
(Prima facie view.)
If it be suggested: The individual soul. Why? Because the
individual soul is well-known to have the mind and the vital-breath as
its instruments, because Scripture declares that Lord Brahman, the
Supreme Being, has no connection with mind and the vital-breath, in
the passage 'Without the vital-breath, without mind, pure' (Muṇḍ.
2.1.2); and, finally, because having the heart for its abode as well as
being atomic, stated in the passage 'This is the soul ³ within the
heart, smaller than a grain of rice, or a barley-corn' (Chānd 3.14.3),
are possible in the case of the limited individual soul alone. If it be
objected: of the six proofs, viz scriptural statement, mark, text,
topic, place and name, each succeeding one is weaker than the preceding
one. Of these, scriptural statement means an independent statement,
and mark means the power of words (to indicate some meaning).
Now, here, the scriptural statement, viz.: 'All this, verily, is Brahman'
(Chānd. 3.14.1), is of a greater force than the mark of the individual
soul, viz consisting of mind and the rest, it being mentioned first,
(the rule being that of these six, each preceding one is of a greater
force than each succeeding one). Hence, Brahman alone, mentioned
above, is to be construed here as the object to be meditated on,―(we
reply:) no, because as that text fulfils its purpose simply by teaching,
as a means to the attainment of tranquillity, that everything has
Brahman for its soul, thus. 'Tranquil, let one meditate', so it is not
concerned with laying down any injunction regarding the meditation
on Brahman (here ends the original Prima facie view) . . .

¹ This passage occurs also in Śat. Br. 10.6.3. It forms a part of the famous
Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, or the Doctrine of Śāṇḍilya. For a further account see footnote
(5), p. 1078 f.
² 'Kṣetrajña, means 'Knower of the field', or the body, i.e. the soul, the
conscious principle in the corporeal frame.
³ Correct quotation. 'Eṣa ma ātmā . . .' Vide Chānd. 3 14.3, p. 158.

[sū. 1. 2. 1.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 93
(Correct conclusion)
We reply—The highest soul alone, possessed of the attributes
of consisting of mind and the rest, is the object to be meditated on.
Why? "Because" the cause of the origin and the rest of the world,
"celebrated everywhere", i.e. in all the Vedāntas, "is taught" as the
cause of all, as the soul of all, here in the text: 'All this, verily, is
Brahman' (Chānd. 3.14.1). Or, else, "because" the attributes of
'consisting of mind' and the rest, "celebrated" in all the Vedāntas as
belonging to the Supreme Brahman, thus: 'Consisting of mind, leader
of the vital-breath and the body' (Muṇḍ. 2.2.7), 'This ether that is
within the heart,—therein is the person, consisting of mind' (Tait. 1.6),
and so on, "are taught". Of these, 'consisting of mind' means
'capable of being apprehended by a purified mind'; 'having
the vital-breath for the body' means 'being the support and the ruler
of even the vital-breath', 'without the vital-breath' means 'abiding in-
dependently of the vital-breath'; and 'without mind' means 'having
knowledge not dependent on the mind'.
Or, else, the text: 'All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from
him, disappearing into him, and breathing in him;—tranquil, let one
meditate (on him) thus' (Chānd. 3.14.1) enjoins meditation, thus:
'Let one meditate on Brahman, the soul of all, in a tranquil spirit'.
The text: 'Let him form a determination' (Chānd. 3.14.1) is a repeti-
tion (of the same injunction), with a view to proving that the attributes
of 'consisting of mind' and the rest belong to the very same Being,
mentioned above, (viz. Brahman). Let one meditate on Brahman, the
soul of all and possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the
rest,—this is the sense of the text. Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether
Brahman, indicated as the soul of all, is the individual soul, or the
Highest self. What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: The
individual soul. Why? Because, it alone can possibly assume the
forms of all kinds of beings, Brahmā and so on, due to karmas, based
on beginningless nescience; while it is never possible for the Supreme
Brahman to assume identity with all sorts of low or vile forms, since
He is endowed with (the attributes of) omniscience, omnipotence,
freedom from sins, freed on by nature from all faults and so on. The
word 'Brahman' too, applies to the individual soul alone, it being
endowed with great qualities (like knowledge and the like). And
the origin and the rest of the world being due to karmas, it is reasonable
to indicate the individual soul as their cause,—

[SŪ. 1. 2. 1.
94 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 1.]
We reply "Because of the teaching of what is celebrated every-
where", i e. the meaning of the word 'Brahman,' who is designated as
the soul of all and as the cause of the origin and the rest of all, is the
Highest Self alone. For this very reason, "everywhere", i e in the
Vedāntas, he is "taught" to be "celebrated" as the cause of the origin
and the rest of the world—because of this, and also because it is
impossible that the origin and the rest of the world can be due to the
individual soul, since in the passages—"He desired. 'May I be many,
may I procreate' . . He created all this" (Tait. 2.6) and
so on, the Supreme Lord alone is celebrated to be the cause of the
world This is stated in the 'Law of salvation' ¹. Beginning.
"'Whence has arisen this entire world, consisting of the immovable
and the movable, and to whom does it go during universal dissolution ?
Tell me that, O grandfather! By whom has this world, together
with the oceans, the sky, mountains, cloud, lands, fire and air,
been made?'" (Mahā. 12.6765-66 ²), having stated 'The scripture
which was related by Bhṛgu to Bhāradvāja, who asked' (Mahā 12
6769C ³); having stated the origin of all beings thus 'Of him who
is called Nārāyaṇa, who is unchangeable, the imperishable soul, who
is unmanifest, unknowable, higher than prakṛti;' ⁴ and having
stated: 'Then, a lustrous, celestial lotus was created by the self-born.
From that lotus arose Brahmā, the Lord, consisting of the Veda'
(Mahā. 12 6779 C–89A ⁵),—the text designates Lord Kṛṣṇa, Nārāyaṇa,
Brahman, as the cause of all sentient beings and non-sentient objects,
thus: 'For he is difficult to be known, undoubtedly inconceivable in
nature even by the perfected souls. He, verily, is Lord Viṣṇu, cele-
brated to be infinite, abiding as the inter controller of all beings,
difficult to be known by those who have not obtained the self,—who
is the creator of this principle of egoism for the production of
all beings, from whom arose the universe, about whom I have been
asked by you here' (Mahā. 12.6784–86A ⁶). Hence, the Highest Self
¹ Mokṣa-dharma is the name of a section of the 12th book of the Mahā-
bhārata, from Adhyāya 174 to the end.
² P. 604, lines 3-4, vol. 3. ³ Op cit., line 7
⁴ This is not traceable in any of the three editions, Asiatic Society, Vanga-
vāsī and Bombay.
⁵ P. 604, lines 17-18 (vol. 3). This verse is not found in the Bombay
edition.
⁶ P. 604, lines 22–24.

[sū. 1. 2. 2.
ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 95
alone is denoted by the word ‘Brahman’ here, and not the individual
soul.¹
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja
Reading same. He gives two alternative interpretations, which
tally with the last two explanations of Śrīnivāsa.²
SŪTRA 2
“AND BECAUSE OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ATTRIBUTES
INTENDED TO BE STATED.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And because the attributes, viz. ‘consisting of mind,’ ‘having
true resolves’ and the rest, “intended to be stated” in the text:
‘Consisting of mind, having the vital-breath for the body, of the
form of light, having true resolves’ (Chānd. 3 14 2 ³) and so on, are
‘appropriate’ on the part of Brahman alone
Vedānta-kaustubha
As the attributes of ‘having true resolves’ and the rest, ‘intended
to be stated’ as the peculiar attributes of Brahman in the passage
‘Consisting of mind, having the breath for the body, of the form of
light, having true resolves, having the ether as the soul, having all
desires, having all odours,⁴ . . . having all tastes, pervading all
this, unspeaking, indifferent’ (Chānd. 3.14.2) and so on, are “appro-
priate” on the part of Brahman alone,—so Brahman alone is under-
stood in the above text. The adjective ‘pervading all this’ means
that He has accepted ‘all this’—i.e. the sentient and the non-sentient
objects, ending with ‘taste’,—as His own; ‘unspeaking’ means that
He abides in silence because of His unsurpassed graveness; ‘indifferent’
means that ‘He has no concern’.
¹ Śrīnivāsa gives altogether three explanations of this Sūtra, the first of
which tallies with the explanation of Nimbārka.
² Śrī. B. 1 2.1. Pp. 231 et seq. Part 1.
³ R. B.
⁴ The original text reads ‘sarva-karma’ after this.

96 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 1. 2, 3.
ADH. 1.]
SŪTRA 3
"BUT ON ACCOUNT OF INAPPROPRIATENESS, NOT THE EMBODIED
(SOUL)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
He who is possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and
the rest is the Supreme Being alone, and not the individual soul,
because (the attributes like) 'consisting of mind', 'having true re-
solves' and so on, are "inappropriate" on its part.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Brahman alone is to be understood as consisting of mind, for
the purpose of meditation, and not "the embodied", i.e. the indivi-
dual soul, possessing a body. Why? Because the attributes of
'having true resolves' and the like are "inappropriate" on the part
of the individual soul. Moreover, the attributes of 'consisting of
mind' and the rest too, are inappropriate on the part of the indivi-
dual soul. Thus, the text says: 'Let him form a determination'
(Chānd. 3.14.1) Of what kind is he? 'Consisting of mind', again,
'having the vital-breath for his body'. These adjectives are not
appropriate on the part of the individual soul, because no such
implication is involved here, nor any purpose. But all these are
appropriate on the part of the Highest self. Thus, when it is said:
Let the worshipper, whether he desires for salvation, or for any
particular fruit, 'form a determination', i.e. perform meditation or
action, in a 'calm' spirit, the question arises: In reference to whom
is he to perform meditation or action? and in reply, the Highest
Person, the soul of all, and indicated above in the passage: 'All
this, verily, is Brahman' (Chānd. 3 14.1), is pointed out as the
object to be meditated on. And, this text: 'Consisting of mind,
having the vital-breath for the body' (Chānd. 3.14.2) and so on
refers to Brahman. Hence the attributes of 'consisting of mind'
and the rest are not appropriate on the part of the individual soul.
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading same, interpretation different. According to Śrīkaṇṭha,
a new adhikaraṇa begins with this sūtra (sūtras 3–8), concerned with

[sū. 1. 2. 4.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 97
the question whether a passage in the Mahā-nārāyaṇa-upaniṣad
(Mahānār. 11 3) refers to Nārāyaṇa or to Śiva Thus —‘(The
passage refers to Śiva, and not (to) the embodied (i e Nārāyaṇa),
because (the attributes of being the Lord of the universe and the
rest) are not appropriate (on the part of Nārāyaṇa)’.¹
SŪTRA 4
“AND BECAUSE OF THE DESIGNATION OF OBJECT AND AGENT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
For this reason too, the object qualified by the adjectives ‘con-
sisting of mind’ and the rest is not the embodied soul, “because of the
designation of object and agent” in the text: ‘On departing hence,
I shall reach him’ (Chānd. 3 14.4 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason, too, that which consists of mind and has breath
for its body is not to be understood as the embodied soul. Why?
“Because of the designation” of the embodied soul as the “agent”,
i.e. as the worshipper, and “because of the designation” of the Highest
Self as the ‘object’, i e as the object to be meditated on and obtained,
in the passage: ‘On departing hence, I shall reach him’ (Chānd.
3.14.4). That is, ‘I’, or one desiring for salvation, ‘shall reach’, i.e.
shall obtain, ‘him’, i.e. Brahman, mentioned before as possessed of the
attributes of ‘consisting of mind’ and the rest, ‘hence’, i.e after the
fall of the body, after the destruction of the works which have begun
to bear fruits A worshipper who is endowed with such a right
insight attains Brahman.
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading same, interpretation different, viz.: ‘(The supreme soul,
viz. Śiva, the object to be meditated on, is other than Nārāyaṇa),
because of the designation of the object and the agent, (i.e. because
¹ ŚK. B. 1.1.3, pp. 318 et seq, Part 4.
² Ś, R, Bh, B.
7

[SŪ. 1. 2. 5.
98 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.]
Śiva is designated to be the object to be worshipped, Nārāyaṇa, the
worshipper).¹
SŪTRA 5
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF WORDS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
That which possesses the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and
the like is the Highest Self, different from the embodied soul, because
in the text: 'This soul of mine within the heart' (Chānd. 3.14.3, 4²)
the individual soul and the Highest Self are denoted by different
words, viz the genitive and the nominative respectively.
Vedānta-kaustubha
For this reason, too, that which possesses the attributes of con-
sisting of mind and so on, is the highest self, different from the embodied
soul. Why? "On account of the difference of words", i e. because
of another scriptural passage of kindred subject-matter, viz. 'Like a
grain of rice, or a barley-corn, or a grain of millet, or the kernel of a
grain of millet, such is the Golden Person within the self' (Śat. Br.
10.6.3 2), there is "difference of words", viz. the locative 'within the
self' denotes the embodied self, while the nominative 'the Golden
Person' denotes the Highest self.³
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
Reading same, interpretation different, viz. ('Brahman, viz.
Śiva, is other than and superior to Nārāyaṇa) on account of a particular
word (or scriptural passage) (to that effect)'.⁴
1 ŚK. B. 1.2.4, pp. 322–324, Part 4.
2 R, B.
3 Note that Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa refer to two different passages here.
4 ŚK. B. 1.2.5. (Pp. 324-25, Part 4.)