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

{SŪ. 3. 2. 31.
ADH. 7 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 561
of eternal, infinite, auspicious qualities, unlimited by so-muchness and
different and non-different from all. Now, it is being shown that He
is not excelled by anything, and this will go to confirm the view that
He is not limited by so-muchness With regard to it, the doubt
being whether Brahman is surpassable or unsurpassable, the author
states the prima facie view
"Than this," i e. than Brahman, omnipotent, the cause of all,
there is a still "higher" reality. Hence Brahman is surpassable.
Why ? "On account of the designations of bridge, measure, connection
and difference." Thus the Supreme Brahman is designated as a bridge:
"Now that which is the soul is a bridge" (Chānd. 8.4.1). From this
designation it is known that there is a reality,—analogous to a rare
object in another island,—which is to be reached and which is higher
than Brahman, analogous to a bridge. Moreover, from the text·
"Having crossed that bridge, one who is blind becomes non-blind"
(Chānd. 8 4.2) too, it is ascertained that like a bridge, Brahman is only
something to be crossed; while the object to be attained is something
other and higher than Brahman Further, there are designations of
measure, viz. "Brahman has four feet" (Chānd. 3.18.2), "Having
sixteen parts" (Praśna 6.1), i.e. the Supreme Brahman is designated as
something limited. These designations clearly indicate the existence
of an immeasurable object to be attained by the bridge. And
from the designation of connection too, viz "This is the bridge of
immortality" (Muṇḍ 2.2 25), it is known that there is someone higher
than Brahman. Finally, there are designations of difference, viz.
"By him, by this Person, all this is filled" (Śvet. 3.9), "That which
is beyond that is without part and without disease" (Śvet. 3.10), i.e.
there is another reality which is beyond Brahman, denoted by the term
‘person’. Thus, it is established that there is a reality higher than
even the Highest Brahman,—this is the prima facie view.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
According to them the word "param" does not mean something
higher, but something different (anya-tattvam).¹ They too take
this to be stating the prima facie view.

¹ Ś.B. 3.2.31, p. 745; Bh. B. 3 2.32 (written as 3.2.31), p. 171.

562 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 32.
ADH. 7.]
Baladeva
This is sūtra 32 in his commentary. He, too, begins a new
adhikarana here, but concerned with an entirely different topic, viz.
that the bliss of the Lord is the highest (three sūtras) Accordingly,
he does not take this sūtra as stating a prima facie view, but simply
as stating the correct conclusion Hence the sūtra: "(The bliss of
Brahman is) higher than this (viz worldly bliss), on account of the
designation of bridge, immeasurableness, relation and difference".
That is, the bliss of Brahman is infinitely higher than the bliss of the
individual soul, for the text about the bridge (Chānd. 8 4.1) shows
that Brahman, the bliss, is the support of the entire world. Further,
the bliss of the Lord is said to be immeasurable (Tait. 2.4) Also,
the relation between the bliss of the Lord and human bliss is declared
to be that between infinity and one (Brh. 4 3.22) Finally, the
difference between the bliss of the Lord and human bliss is declared.
All these go to prove that the bliss of the Lord is the highest ¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 32–37)
SŪTRA 32
“BUT ON ACCOUNT OF RESEMBLANCE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The author states the correct conclusion.
The term “but” is meant for disposing of the above view. There
is nothing whatsoever higher than the Universal Lord, the cause of
the world. The Lord is designated as a bridge only because He is
similar to the bridge in a certain respect, i e. He keeps the worlds
apart.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author states the correct conclusion.
The word “but” is meant for disposing of the prima facie view.
It cannot be said that there is something ‘higher than this’. Why?
On account of the following reasons: First, the Lord is designated
¹ G B. 3.2.32, pp 90-91, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 33.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 563
as a bridge “on account of resemblance”, i.e simply because He is
similar to the bridge, well-known in ordinary life. Just as in ordinary
life a bridge adjusts water¹, so the Soul too is a bridge as adjusting the
boundary of the world ², in accordance with complementary passage :
“For keeping these worlds apart' (Chānd. 8 4.1). In the text:
“Having crossed the bridge” (Chānd. 8.4 2), the word ‘crosses’ means
‘attains’, as in the statement: ‘He crosses the Vedānta’.³
Baladeva
This is sūtra 33 in his commentary. He continues the topic of
the bliss of Brahman. Hence the sūtra. “(If it be objected that
human bliss cannot be different from the bliss of Brahman, because
the same word ‘bliss’ is applied to both, just as an object designated
by the word ‘jar’ cannot be different from another object designated
by the same term ‘jar’—we reply: the word ‘bliss’ is applied to human
bliss) on account of generic resemblance”. That is, just as the common
term ‘jar’ is applied to all jars irrespective of their individual
differences, so the common term ‘bliss’ is applied to human and divine
bliss, irrespective of the difference between the two ⁴
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 33
“(THE DESIGNATION OF MEASURE IS) FOR THE PURPOSE OF
UNDERSTANDING, AS IN THE CASE OF FEET ”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The designations of measure are for promoting meditation. It is
for this reason that Brahman is designated as having feet thus: “Let
one meditate on the mind as Brahman,—thus with reference to the
self” (Chānd. 3.18.1 ⁵), “That Brahman has four feet. Speech is one
foot” (Chānd. 3.18 2 ⁶) and so on.
¹ I.e. separates one sheet of water from another, and marks the boundaries
of contiguous fields.
² I.e. separates one world from another.
³ Which means that he has attained or mastered the Vedānta.
⁴ G.B. 3.2 33, p. 91, Chap. 3
⁵ Not quoted by others. ⁶ R, ŚK.

[sū. 3. 2. 33.
564 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
The designations of measure too are "for the purpose of under-
standing" or meditation. "As in the case of feet," i e. as in the case
of the designation of the feet of the mind and the rest Thus, in
the text: "Let one meditate on the mind as Brahman,—thus with
reference to the self. That Brahman has four feet. Speech is
one foot, the vital-breath is one foot, the eye is one foot, the ear
is one foot" (Chānd 3.18 1-2), the mind, a symbol of Brahman,
is declared to have feet. In the same manner the fire and the rest
are described as the feet of the ether (Chānd. 3.18 2) for promoting
meditation, but not for indicating a particular measure or size.
Similarly, here too Brahman,—who is the cause of the world and
who is ascertained to be unlimited from the text: "Brahman is
truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait. 2.1)—is designated as having four
feet (Chānd. 3.18 2) "for the purpose of understanding" only, but
this never implies that He is something measured or limited—this
is the sense.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 34 in his commentary. He concludes here the
section concerned with showing that the bliss of Brahman is the
highest. Hence the sūtra: "(If it be objected: If the bliss of Brahman
be different from human bliss, i.e. if Brahman be different from the
Universe of the sentient and the non-sentient, then how can the
teaching in Chānd. 3.14 1, viz that -‘All this, verily, is Brahman’,
be reasonable?—we reply: that teaching is) for the purpose of
Understanding, as in the case of feet". That is, the whole world is
said to be Brahman in order to bring about an easy realization
of Him, just as everything is said to be His foot (Ṛg. V. 10.90.3)
for the same reason.¹
¹ G.B 3.2.34, pp. 92-93, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 34.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 565
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 34
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE SPECIALITY OF PLACE, AS IN THE CASE OF
LIGHT AND SO ON."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The thinking of what is unlimited as limited fits in "on account
of the speciality of place, as in the case of light and so on".
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. The unlimited can never become limited
even for promoting meditation?—the author replies:
It is possible for Brahman, though Himself unlimited, to become
limited "on account of the speciality of place", "as in the case of light
and so on", i.e. just as light, the ether and the like, though unlimited,
yet appear to be limited through their connection with windows,
pots and so on.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation different, viz "(There is nothing besides Brahman)
on account of the difference of place (i e. limiting adjunct), as in the
case of light and so on" That is, Brahman is one, though it appears
to be many through its connection with limiting adjuncts, just as the
light of the sun appears to have many shapes through its connection
with fingers, etc. Hence plurality is not ultimately real.¹
Bhāskara
This sūtra is not found in his commentary.
Baladeva
This is sūtra 35 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikarana
here, concerned with showing that the Lord has a variety of manifes-
tations (two sūtras). Hence the sūtra: "(The manifestations of the
Lord are different), on account of the difference of place (i.e. the
¹ Ś B. 3.2.34, p. 748.

566 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 2. 35.
ADH. 7.]
difference of the devotees to whom He manifests Himself), as in the
case of light and so on”. That is, the Lord, though one, manifests
Himself in different forms to His devotees, in accordance with the
difference of their devotions,—those who worship Him; as the Master
see Him as the Majestic, and those who worship Him as the Beloved,
see Him as the Sweet,—just as the same light appears different when
it falls on different parts of a temple and so on ¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 35
“ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATENESS.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And “on account of the appropriateness” of the designation of
a relation, since He Himself leads to His own attainment, there is
no other reality, higher than Brahman
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been alleged that on account of the designation of a rela-
tion between the object to be attained and that which causes to attain,
there is something ‘higher than this’. To this the author replies :
The Supreme Person causes the attainment of His own self,
the object to be attained, in accordance with the scriptural text:
“This soul is not attainable by instruction, nor by intellect, nor by
much learning. He is attainable only by one whom he chooses. To
him the soul reveals his own person” (Katha 2.23; Muṇḍ. 3.2.3);
and in accordance with the statement of the Highest Person: ‘“Fix
your mind in me, be my devotee, sacrifice to me, bow down to me.
You shall come to me alone. I promise you truth; you are dear to
me” ’ (Gītā 18.65). “On account of the appropriateness,” thus,
of the designation of the object to be attained and that which causes
to attain,—to say that there is something ‘higher than this’ does not
stand to reason.
¹ G.B. 3.2.35, p. 94, Chap 3

[sū. 3. 2. 36.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 567
COMPARISON
All others add a “ca” at the end, thus “Upapatteś ca”
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz. In answer to the objection (stated
under sūtra 31), viz. that there is something other than Brahman,
since during deep sleep the individual soul is said to enter into Brahman
—which implies a difference between the two,—it is pointed out here
that such a relation between the individual soul and Brahman is
appropriate, since it does not imply that the individual soul is related
to Brahman as a man to a city, (according to Bhāskara, as a rope to
a pot), i.e. externally, but that the two are really identical. Hence
it is that the individual soul is said to enter into itself during deep
sleep.¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 36 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic
of the different manifestations of the Lord in accordance with the
different kinds of devotion thus: “And on account of the appropriate-
ness (of the Chānd. text 3.14 1)”. That is, the text: “As you meditate,
so you become” is explicable only on this view, viz. that the devotees
realize the Lord differently in accordance with their different modes
of worshipping Him ²
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 36
“LIKEWISE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DENIAL OF ANOTHER.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“Likewise,” it is not to be said that on account of the designation
of difference, viz. “That which is beyond that” (Śvet. 3.10 ³), there
is a reality other than Brahman,—“on account of the denial”, viz.
“Than whom there is nothing else whatsoever higher” (Śvet. 3.9 ;
Mahānār. 10.4 ⁴).
¹ Ś.B. 3.2.35, p. 748, Bh. B. 3 2.35, p. 171.
² G.B. 3.2 36, p. 95, Chap. 3.
³ R, B. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, B.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 36.
568 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7 ]
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been said that on account of the designation of difference,
viz. “By him, by the Person, all this is filled. That which is beyond
that is without form, without disease” (Śvet. 3 9-3.10), there is
something ‘higher than this’. To this the author replies.
On account of the stated reasons Brahman is without an
equal and a superior; “likewise on account of the denial of another”,
i.e. of an equal or a superior, as well, it is established that He has no
equal or a superior; In accordance with the scriptural text: “Than
whom there is nothing else whatsoever higher” (Śvet 3 9; Mahānār.
10.4) and so on,—the word ‘higher’ meaning something better, the
word ‘something else’ meaning something equal ¹,—as well as in
accordance with the Smṛti passage: ‘“There is nothing else higher
than me, O Dhanañjaya !”’ (Gītā 7 7) and so on, the section is
concerned with the supremacy of the Person, the topic of discussion ;
and hence by the text. “That which is beyond that” (Śvet. 3.10)
another reality is not established. On the contrary, in accordance
with the text: “Than whom there is nothing else whatsoever higher,
than whom there is nothing else smaller, nothing else greater,—the
One stands motionless like a tree in heaven, by him, the Person, all
this is filled” (Śvet. 3.9; Mahānār. 10 4), Brahman, the Highest
Person, is without an equal and a superior, and all-pervading; and for
this reason, Brahman, called ‘Person’, is said to be beyond that.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
They understand this sūtra to mean that in Scripture there is the
denial of anything else besides Brahman, and hence Brahman is the
sole reality.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 35 in his commentary.
He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with
the question whether there is anything equal to the Lord, the doubt
that there may be something superior to Him being disposed of in
the previous adhikaraṇa. Hence the sūtra “Likewise (i.e. just as

¹ The text is: “Yasmāt paraṁ nāparam asti kiñcit”.
² Ś.B. 3.2.36, pp 748-749, Bh. B. 3.2.36, p. 172.

[sū. 3. 2. 37.
ADH. 7 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 569
there is nothing superior to the Lord, so there is nothing equal to Him),
on account of the denial of another (creator), (i e because Scripture
denies that there is any other creator besides Him)".¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 37 in his commentary. He takes it as constituting
an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with proving that the Lord is
the highest, for unless the Lord be the Highest, there can be no love
and devotion for Him.
――――
CORRECT CONCLUSION (end)
SŪTRA 37
"HEREBY THE ALL-PERVASIVENESS (OF THE LORD IS CONFIRMED),
ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL TEXTS ABOUT EXPANSION AND
SO ON."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"Hereby" the "all-pervasiveness" of the Supreme Brahman is
confirmed, "on account of the scriptural texts" like: "By Him, the
Person, all this is filled" (Śvet. 3.9 ²) and so on
Vedānta-kaustubha
"Hereby," i e. by the section designating the Lord as having
no equal or a superior, the "all-pervasiveness" of Brahman is con-
firmed. If there were an equal or a superior to the Lord, He would
not have been all-pervasive. The author states the authority for
this: "On account of the scriptural texts about expansion and so on"
—the word 'expansion' here means all-pervasiveness—such as: "By
Him, the Person, all this is filled" (Śvet. 3.9; Mahānār. 10.4), "And
whatever is seen or heard in this world,—Nārāyaṇa abides by
pervading all that, inside and outside" (Mahānār. 11.6 ³), "Eternal,
omnipresent, all-pervasive, excessively subtle" (Muṇḍ. 1.1.6) and so
on. The words "and so on" imply the scriptural texts that denote
Brahman as the cause of all, as the soul of all, thereby confirming
――――
¹ Śk B. 3.2 35, p. 266, Part 9. ² R.
³ A slightly different version is found in Tait. Ār. 10.11.1

[sū. 3. 2 37.
570 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.]
His all-pervasiveness, viz. “He is the cause, the cause of the
lord of causes” ¹ (Śvet 6 9), “All this has that for its soul”
(Chānd. 6.8.6, etc.). “All this, verily, is Brahman” (Chānd 3 14 1),
“Brahman alone is all this” (Nṛ. Ut. 7), “The soul alone is all this”
(Chānd. 7.26.1) and so on. Hence it is established that Brahman,
the cause of the world, is without an equal and a superior.
Here ends the section entitled “The Highest” (7).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
While Nimbārka takes the section to be establishing that there
is nothing higher than Brahman, they take it as establishing that there
is nothing besides Brahman. Hence the sūtra “Hereby (i.e. by
proving that there is nothing besides Brahman) (His) all-pervasiveness
(is established) . . . . ” ²
Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 36 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic,
viz. that there is nothing equal to Brahman. Interpretation different,
viz. “Hereby (i.e. through Nārāyaṇa) (Śiva’s) all-pervasiveness (is
known), on account of scriptural texts about expansion (i e. supreme
all-pervasiveness) and so on”. That is, Scripture declares that the
Lord Śiva pervades the entire universe through Nārāyaṇa, the material
cause who is but a part of Himself. Hence it is known that the Lord
Himself is all-pervasive.³
Baladeva
This is sūtra 38 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming
an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with establishing the all-pervasive-
ness of the Lord, though he interprets it differently thus: “(If it be
objected that the Lord is not all-pervasive, but of a middle size, i.e.
of the size of the body or form in which He appears before His devotees,
¹ Correct quotation : “Karaṇādhipādhipa”=lord of the lord of sense-organs
(or the individual soul).
² Ś.B. 3.2.37, p. 749; Bh. B. 3.2.37, p 172.
³ Śk. B. 3 2 36, pp. 269-270. Vide also the commentary on Śk. B. on the
same pages.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 38-39.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 571
—then we reply) "By Him (i e. by the Lord) all-pervasiveness (is
possible), on account of the scriptural texts about expansion and so
on" That is, even the middle form of the Lord, i.e. the form in which
He appears before His devotees, is all-pervasive, for Scripture declares
so.¹
Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "The Fruit".
(Sūtras 38–41)
SŪTRA 38
"THE FRUIT (ARISES) FROM THIS, ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATE-
NESS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"From this," i.e. from Brahman alone, arises "the fruit" accruing
to different individuals, in accordance with the particular duties to
which they are entitled,—as He alone can be such a giver of fruits.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus the attributes of Brahman, viz. being free from sins, being
an abode of eternal and infinite, auspicious attributes, having no
equal or superior and the like, have been stated. Now the author
states a particular quality of Brahman, the Highest, viz. being the
giver of fruits.
"The fruit," consisting in enjoyment and salvation, accruing
to particular individuals in accordance with the particular duties
to which they are entitled, arise "from this", i.e. from the Highest
alone. Why? "On account of appropriateness," i.e. because the
Highest Person alone, omniscient, omnipotent, the controller of all
can be such a giver of fruits.
SŪTRA 39
"AND BECAUSE OF BEING DECLARED IN SCRIPTURE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And because the fact that He is the giver of fruits is declared by
texts like: "He, verily, is the great, unborn self, the eater of food, the
¹ G B. 3.2.38, p. 98, Chap. 3.
7

572 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 2. 40.
ADH. 8.]
giver of wealth" (Bṛh. 4 4.24¹), "For he alone causes bliss" (Tait.
2.7 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
And as the fact that the Highest Self is the giver of fruits is
declared by texts like: "He, verily, is the great, unborn self, the eater
of food, the giver of wealth" (Bṛh. 4.4 24), "For He alone causes bliss"
(Tait. 2 7),—from Him alone can the fruit arise.
OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 40)
SŪTRA 40
"RELIGIOUS MERIT (IS THE GIVER OF FRUITS), JAIMINI (THINKS SO)
FOR THOSE VERY REASONS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"Jaimini" thinks that "religious merit" is the cause of the
fruit,—because, as in the case of tilling, it alone can appropriately
be its cause; and because the text: "One desirous of heaven should
perform sacrifices" (Tait. Saṁ 2.5.5 ³) declares it to be such
a cause.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been stated above that 'On account of appropriateness'
(sūtra 38), 'And on account of being declared' (sūtra 39), the fruit
arises from the Highest. Now, as in the case of tilling, Karmas
alone can appropriately be the cause of fruits. Further, Karmas like
sacrifices and the rest, are declared to be productive of fruits by
texts like. "One desirous of heaven should perform sacrifices" (Tait.
Saṁ. 2.5.5) and so on. Hence, "for those very reasons," i.e. on
account of the same two reasons, the teacher "Jaimini" thinks that
"religious merit" alone, or Karma, is the cause of fruit through the
¹ Ś, R, Bh, B.
² R.
³ P. 208, line 27, vol. 2. Ś, R, Bh.
7B

[SŪ 3. 2 41.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 573
intermediary of the operation called ‘apūrva’ The operation called
‘apūrva’ is said to be a particular subsequent state of the sacrifice.¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 41)
SŪTRA 41
“BUT (THE GIVER OF FRUITS IS) THE FORMER (VIZ. THE LORD),
BĀDARĀYAṆA (THINKS SO), ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF
(HIM AS) THE CAUSE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The word “but” is meant for disposing of the above view. The
teacher of the Veda thinks that the giver of fruits is the Highest Self,
mentioned before, “on account of the designation” of the Highest as
the cause of it thus: “In consequence of good work, it leads to a
holy world” (Praśna 3.7²), “He is attainable by one alone whom
he chooses” (Kaṭha 2 23; Muṇḍ. 3.2.3³).
Here ends the second quarter of the third chapter in the
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-
mīmāṁsā texts, by the reverend Nimbārka
Vedānta-kaustubha
The term “but” indicates the hollowness of Jaimini's view.
Never in the past, present or future do Karmas like tilling and the rest
bestow the fruit to the tiller independently, but the Supreme Lord
alone does so Similarly, the Vedic works too (viz. sacrifices
and the like), unacquainted with the nature of themselves and of
others, and done by persons who are tormented by the wheel of the
world and are dependent on another, are not able to bring about
the fruit independently. Even texts like : “One desirous of heaven
1 According to Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, the results of sacrifices and so on are due
neither to a Supreme Deity—which it does not recognize—, nor to the particular
deities to whom the oblations are offered, but to an unseen potency generated
by the very performance of the sacrifices and so on. This unseen potency is
called ‘apūrva’. Vide Pū.Mī.Sū. 2 1.5.
2 B 3 Not quoted by others.

[SŪ. 3. 2. 41.
574 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 8.]
should perform sacrifices" (Tait. Saṃ. 2.5.5) and so on, never
assert that Karma is the giver of fruits independently. On the
contrary, these texts instigate men to Karmas such as, worship of
the deity, that lead to heaven. But Bādarāyaṇa thinks that
the giver of fruits like enjoyment and salvation is "the former",
i.e the Highest Self, the soul of all, omniscient, mentioned above.
Why? "On account of the designation of (Him as) the cause,"
i.e. because the Highest Self alone is designated as the cause, as
the instigator of actions and as the giver of fruits by a mass of
scriptural texts like "For he alone makes one, whom he wishes to
lead up from these worlds, do good deed" (Kauṣ. 3.8), "In
consequence of good work, it leads to a holy world" (Praśna 3.7),
"He is attainable by one alone whom he chooses" (Kaṭha
2.23; Muṇḍ. 3.2.3) and so on, as well as by a group of Smṛti
passages like: "'And he attains his desires from him, the benefits
are decreed by me alone'" (Gītā 7.22) '"I give that connection with
intellect whereby they come to me'" (Gītā 10.10) and so on. Hence
it is established that the fruit arises from this.
Here ends the section entitled "The fruit" (8).
Here ends the second quarter of third chapter in the holy Vedānta-
kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīrakamīmāṃsā, by the
reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa.
Résumé
The second quarter of the third chapter contains.—
(1) 41 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka;
(2) 41 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṃkara;
(3) 40 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja;
(4) 41 sūtras and 7 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara;
(5) 40 sūtras and 9 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha,
(6) 42 sūtras and 19 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva.
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha take sūtras 20 and 21 in Nimbārka's
commentary as one sūtra. Bhāskara omits sūtra 34 in Nimbārka's
commentary, while sūtra 15 in Bhāskara's commentary is not found
in Nimbārka's. Baladeva breaks sūtra 25 in Nimbārka's commentary
into two separate sūtras.

THIRD CHAPTER (Adhyāya)
THIRD QUARTER (Pāda)
Adhikaraṇa 1: The section entitled "The un-
derstanding from all the Vedāntas". (Sūtras
1-5)
SŪTRA 1
"THE UNDERSTANDING (I E. WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD) FROM ALL THE
VEDĀNTAS (IS ONE), ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DIFFERENCE OF
INJUNCTION AND THE REST"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Although mentioned in many places, meditation is one only,
"On account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest".
Vedānta-kaustubha
Thus, with a view to instigating one who desires salvation to the
meditation on the Highest Self which is a means to attaining His
nature, the attributes of the Highest Self have been stated. Now,
although knowledge is a means to attaining the nature of the Highest
Self, yet just as sacred texts, spiritual teachers and the like, though
well-known, come to be productive of fruits only when meditated on,
so the Highest Self, though well-known, comes to be productive of
fruits only when meditated on Now, we shall discuss the nature of
vidyās or meditations on such a Supreme Brahman, as well as the
problem whether these different vidyās ¹ are really identical or not,
for ascertaining the combination or options of the details in them.
The Udgītha-vidyā,² the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā,³ the Puruṣa-vidyā,⁴
the Dahara-vidyā,⁵ the Vaiśvānara-vidyā ⁶ and the rest are mentioned
¹ The vidyās are the various meditations mentioned in the various Upaniṣads
and so on.
² Bṛh. 1.3 and Chānd 1.2. Vide Br Sū. 3.3.6.
³ Bṛh. 5.6; Śat Br. 10.6.3; and Chānd. 3.14. Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.19.
⁴ Chānd. 3 16–3.17 and Ait. Ār. 10.64. Vide Br. Sū. 3 3.24.
⁵ Bṛh. 2.1 17 and Chānd. 8.1–8.6. Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.38.
⁶ Bṛh 5.9 and Chānd. 5.11–5.18. Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.55.

576 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 1.
ADH. 1.]
by many schools. It will be shown later on that the peculiar features
or details, mentioned in connection with each particular vidyā, are to
be combined together However, the arrangement of the syllables
in the aphorism is as follows. The same vidyā is mentioned in many
Vedāntas On the doubt, viz. whether it is different, or whether
the same vidyā is mentioned in many places,—if the prima facie
view be. As it is mentioned in texts again and again without any
specification, and because of the force of context, it is different. For
this very reason, surely, the restriction with regard to the imparting
of knowledge to the followers of the Atharva-veda who practise
the head-rite ¹ mentioned in the passage “Let one declare this
knowledge of Brahman to them alone by whom, however, the
head-rite has been practised according to rules” (Muṇḍ 3 2 10),
is reasonable, otherwise the head-rite, a part of vidyā, being open
to the followers of all schools, the above restriction will be
meaningless,—
We reply. “The understanding from all the Vedāntas”, i.e. the
meditation which is known from all, i. e. many, Vedāntas should
be known to be one only. Why? “On account of the non-difference
of injunction and the rest.” Among these, ‘injunction’ means an
injunction like ‘one should know’, ‘one should meditate’. The
words ‘and the rest’ imply connection, form and name, mentioned
as the reasons for the non-difference of Karmas, in the aphorism
laying down the correct conclusion under the section treating of
different schools in the Pūrva-tantra, viz. “Or, one, on account of
non-difference of connection, form, injunction and name” (Pū. Mī.
Sū. 2.4.9 ²). That is, the meditations are identical, on account of the
non-difference of their injunctions, connections, forms and names,—
just as the obligatory Agni-hotra ³, mentioned in many branches,
such as “He performs the Agni-hotra” (Chānd 5.24.1, 2), is one,
on account of the non-difference of injunction; just as the Vaiśvānara-
vidyā is recorded in both the Chāndogya (Chānd. 5.11–5.18) and
Vājasaneyaka (Bṛh. 5.9), and here on account of the non-difference
of injunctions, viz. “He meditates on Vaiśvānara” (Chānd. 5.12.2–
¹ For explanation see V.K. 3.3.3 below.
² P. 200, vol. 1.
³ Agni-hotra is an oblation to fire, chiefly of milk, oil and sour gruel, and
there are two kinds of it, nitya or of constant obligation and kāmya or optional.

[Sū. 3. 3. 2.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 577
5.13 2, etc.), as well as of forms, name and of connection, viz. the
attainment of Brahman, the vidyās are identical. In this case, the root
‘as’ indicates that the injunction is same, the form, viz. Vaiśvānara,
is the same; and the name also is the same, viz. Vaiśvānara-vidyā.
COMPARISON.
Śaṁkara
Literal interpretation same. But the fundamental difference is
that according to Śaṁkara, all these vidyās are concerned with
Saguna or lower Brahman only, and are not as such means to the
attainment of the Nirguna or the higher Brahman. Some of them
lead to the attainment of results here, while others lead to salvation
on gradually by way of generating knowledge.¹
Baladeva
He does not refer to the various vidyās, mentioned in the various
Upaniṣads. In fact, as we shall see, he does not regard this pāda as
dealing with the vidyās at all. He interprets the word: “Sarva-
vedānta-pratyam” as “Sarva-veda-antapratyam”. The word “anta”
means settled conclusion. Hence the sūtra: “The settled conclusion
of all the Vedas is the knowledge (of Brahman), on account of the
non-difference of injunction and the rest”. That is all the Vedas
seek to teach Brahman, since all of them enjoin meditation on
Brahman.²
SŪTRA 2
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES (OF
THE OBJECT OF MEDITATION, THERE IS) NO (IDENTITY OF VIDYĀ),
(WE REPLY:) (THERE MAY BE REPETITION) EVEN WITH REGARD TO
ONE (VIDYĀ).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected: the object of meditation is not the same,
otherwise the same vidyā would not have been repeated in different
Scriptures. Hence the vidyās are different—(we reply:) No, because
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.1, p. 754. ² [G.B.] 3.3.1.

[SŪ 3. 3. 2.
578 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.]
the repetition of one and the same vidyā is appropriate sometimes,
because the readers are diffcrent, and sometimes for making the topic
clear
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected : the same vidyās are often found repeated in
the very same form in different sections. Hence the object to be
meditated on must be different, and so the vidyās cannot be
identical,—
We reply : Such repetitions of the same vidyās in different sections
are quite reasonable, as they serve a useful purpose. The same
vidyā, set forth in one branch, is set forth again in the same form
in other branches for the benefit of the different readers of those
branches. If there be differences in some parts, then the device of
the combination of points is to be resorted to.¹ In the case of one
and the same branch, on the other hand, the readers being the same,
every section deals with a different vidyā, since the texts are mutually
sufficient by themselves.²
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ Vide Br. Sū 3.3.5.
² The sense is as follows : If one and the same vidyā be repeated in different
Upaniṣads and so on, then there must evidently be some reasonable explanation
for such a repetition. The prima facie objector points out that such a repetition
serves no purpose and hence we must hold that really there is no repetition of
the same vidyā, but that each is a new and separate vidyā, concerned with a
different object. The answer to this is that such a repetition of one of the same
vidyā in different branches of the Vedas is not meaningless, but serves two
purposes:—
(a) First, such a repetition is for the benefit of the different readers of the
different branches of the Vedas. Each and every person does not evidently
study each and every branch of the Vedas, but may read only one or some. A
man, e.g. who studies the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, may not study the Chāndogya as well,
and vice versa. Hence one and the same vidyā is set forth in both these Upaniṣads
in order that both these persons may equally have an access to the vidyā in
question.
(b) Secondly, such a repetition serves to rectify possible mistakes, and make
the topic clearer and confirm what has been already said.
Thus, the fact that we meet with the same vidyā in different branches
gives rise to no inconsistency. In the case of one and the same branch, however,
the above two purposes being absent, there is no such repetition. Hence here
every section deals with a different vidyā.

[Sū. 3. 3. 2.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 579
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz "If it be objected that on account
of the differences (of details) (there is) no (oneness of vidyā), (we
reply:) (there may be difference of details) even in (one vidyā)".
That is, the prima facie objector holds that the same vidyā is
mentioned with different particulars in different places, e.g. in con-
nection with the Pañcāgni-vidyā, five fires are spoken of in the Chān-
dogya, but six in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. This proves that the two
Pañcāgni-vidyās are not identical. The answer is that such differences
of details are permissible even in the case of one and the same vidyā.
If two vidyās agree in all essential points, the difference in some details
by no means makes them two separate vidyās.¹
Baladeva
As before, he does not raise the problem of the identity of vidyās
at all, but only the problem whether Brahman is known from all the
Vedas or not. Hence the sūtra: "If it be objected that on account
of difference (i.e. the different accounts of Brahman), (Brahman is)
not (designated in all branches). (we reply:) even in the same (branch)
(other attributes of Brahman are mentioned)". That is, if it be
objected that Brahman is designated differently in different Upaniṣads,
--e.g. in one place He is depicted as knowledge and bliss (Bṛh. 3.9 28),
in another as omniscient and all-knowing (Muṇḍ 1.1.9),--and as such
the same Brahman is not set forth by all the Upaniṣads--the reply
is that in the same Upaniṣad where Brahman is designated as know-
ledge and bliss, He is designated as omniscient as well. Hence all
branches speak of the same Brahman.²
1 Ś.B. 3.3.2, pp. 757-758, Bh. B. 3.3.2, pp. 175-176.
2 G.B. 3.3.2.

580 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 3.
ADH. 1.]
SŪTRA 3
"BECAUSE (THE HEAD-RITE IS A SUBSIDIARY PART) OF THE STUDY
OF THE VEDA (AND NOT OF VIDYĀ), (IT) BEING SO (THERE IS) THAT
RESTRICTION, (BECAUSE IT IS MENTIONED TO BE SO) IN THE
SAMĀCĀRA, AND BECAUSE OF THE TOPIC, AND AS IN THE CASE OF
LIBATIONS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And that head-rite too, which is mentioned in the text of the
followers of the Atharva-veda thus: "Let one declare this knowledge
of Brahman to them alone by whom, however, the head-rite has been
performed according to rules" (Muṇḍ 3 2.10 ¹), does not prove that
the vidyās are different, since the head-rite is enjoined as a subsidiary
part of the study of the Veda. It being a subsidiary part of the
Vedic study, is not performed by any one other than a follower of the
Atharva-veda, and hence there is "that restriction".² Since in the
book called "Samācāra" too they record the head-rite as a Vedic rite,
and since there is a text: "One who had practised the vow does not
read this" (Muṇḍ. 3.2.11 ³), that restriction is indeed appropriate,
as it is in the case of oblations, beginning with the Sauryya
Vedānta-kaustubha
If the rite of carrying a pot of burning charcoals on the head,
taught as a sacred duty in the text of the followers of the Atharva-
veda thus: "Let one declare the knowledge of Brahman to them alone
by whom, however, the head-rite has been performed according to
rules" (Muṇḍ. 3.2 10), were a subsidiary part of the vidyā, then
only we could have said that the vidyās are different. But as it
is not a subordinate part of vidyā, we cannot do so.⁴ The word
"because" states the reason, i.e. because the sacred duty called 'head-
rite' is a subsidiary part "of the study of the Veda" alone, and
not of the vidyā stated in it. "(It) being so," i.e. the head-rite
being a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda, there is "that
restriction", i.e. the restriction with regard to the teaching of
¹ Ś, R, Śk.
² Viz. that only those who have performed the head-rite are entitled to the
knowledge of Brahman.
³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
⁴ This answers the prima facie view mentioned above under V.K. 3.3.1.