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

[SŪ. 3. 3. 9.
ADH 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 593
that the term udgītha expresses a specialization of the Om is) appro-
priate”.¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
He too takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself.
Interpretation different, viz. In the text. “Let one meditate on the
syllable Om, the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1), the Om and the udgītha
are mentioned separately. The problem is whether they are to be
meditated on separately or co-ordinately. The prima facie view is
that they are to be meditated on separately, since they are mentioned
separately. But the correct conclusion is that the udgītha qualifies
the praṇava and as such the praṇava is the object to be meditated
on here. Hence the sūtra: “And on account of the universality (of
the praṇava as the object to be meditated on), (the view that the
praṇava is qualified by the udgītha is) appropriate”. That is, just as
the praṇava is designated as the object to be meditated on in the
introductory passage, so in the subsequent passages too Hence
here the object to be meditated is the praṇava as qualified by the
udgītha, and not the praṇava and the udgītha.²
Baladeva
This is sūtra 10 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming
an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the
attributes of infancy and the like too are to be included in the medi-
tations on Him. Hence the sūtra: “And on account of all-pervasive-
ness, (this is) consistent”. That is, the Lord is all-pervading in spite
of His states of infancy and the like, since He is not limited by those
attributes of infancy and so on. Hence the meditation on the Lord
as possessed of these attributes is perfectly consistent.³
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.9, pp. 766 ff.; Bh. B. 3.3.9, pp. 177-178.
² Śk. B. 3.3.9, pp. 296–298, Part 9.
³ G.B. 3 3.10, pp. 127-128, Chap. 3.