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

[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.

[sū. 3. 3. 3.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 581
the rite, viz. that the sacred duty called ‘head-rite’ is to be
perfomed by the followers of the Atharva-veda, and not by
others. How is this known ? “In the Samācāra,” i e. in a book
concerned with teaching Vedic rites, the followers of the Atharva-
veda record the head-rite as a Vedic rite,—from that this is known;
also “from the topic”, i e. because in the subsequent and concluding
text: “One who has not practised the vow does not read this” (Muṇḍ.
3.2.11), the word ‘this’ refers to the collection of the Muṇḍaka-
treatises forming the topic previously treated , further, the word
‘reads’ means ‘studies’
Here (the author) quotes a parallel instance “And as in the
case of libations” The ‘libations’, i.e. the seven oblations.
beginning with the Sauryya and ending with the Śataudana, have no
connection with the three fires mentioned in a different branch,
but are connected with the one fire mentioned by the texts
belonging to the Atharva-veda, and hence they are to be offered to
one fire by the followers of the Atharva-veda alone. In the very same
manner, the followers of the Atharva-veda alone are entitled to
perform the sacred duty called ‘head-rite’, which is a subsidiary part of
the study of the Veda, and not others. In the text. “Let one declare
the knowledge of Brahman” (Muṇḍ. 3.2 10), on the other hand, the
word ‘Brahman’ denotes the sound Brahman (i.e. the Vedas) ¹
COMPARISON
Bhāskara
He reads “salila-vac ca” in place of “sava-vac ca”.² Interpre-
tation same
Baladeva
He breaks the sūtra into two separate sūtras thus: “Svādhya-
yasya . . . . adhicārac ca” (sūtra 3), and “Sava-vac ca tan niyama”
(sūtra 4). Interpretations entirely different, viz.:—
Sūtra 3. “For the injunction of the study of the Veda being
such (i.e of a general import), and because of the eligibility (of all)
to the sacred duties (mentioned in the Veda), (the entire Veda must
¹ That is, the head-rite being a Vedic rite, a part of the Vedic study,—those
who practise it become entitled to the knowledge of the Atharva-veda in general.
² Bh. B. 3.3.3, p. 176.

582 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 4.
ADH. 1 ]
be studied)''. That is, injunctions like "Let one study his own sacred
text" (Tait. Ār. 2 15) do not specify that only one particular portion
of the Veda is to be studied, but that it is to be studied entirely.
Moreover, the followers of one branch are not necessarily confined to
the sacred duties of that branch only, but to all the duties enjoined
in all the branches. Hence Brahman may be realized by all the
religious practices taught in all the Vedas.¹
Sūtra 4. "And the restriction is not like libations" That is,
the seven libations, beginning with the Sauryya and ending with the
Śataudana, are open to the followers of the Atharva-veda only, and
cannot be offered by the followers of other Vedas. But such is not
the case with the worship of Brahman, which is universal and may
be porformed by any and every one.²

SŪTRA 4
‘AND (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS.’’
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“And” the scriptural text: “The word which all the Vedas
record” (Katha 2.15³) “shows” that the vidyās are identical.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Scripture “shows” that the vidyās aro the same thus. “The
word which all the Vedas declare” (Kaṭha 2.15); Smṛti too:
“ ‘Through all the Vedas I alone am to be known’ ” (Gītā 15 15).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He quotes the same passage, but as before does not refer to the
identity of vidyās, but concludes the topic that Brahman is the object
taught by all the Vedas.⁴

¹ G.B. 3.3.3, pp. 114-115, Chap. 3.
² G.B. 3.3 3, pp. 114-115, Chap. 3.
³ Ś, R, Bh, B. ⁴ G.B. 3.3.5.

[SŪ. 3. 3 5.
ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 583
SŪTRA 5
"AND (THE VIDYĀS) BEING THE SAME, (THERE IS) COMBINATION
(OF THE SPECIAL FEATURES), ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DIFFERENCE
OF MEANING AS IN THE CASE OF WHAT IS COMPLEMENTARY TO
INJUNCTION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The vidyās being identical, and their meaning being the same,
their special features are to be combined together, "as in the case
of what is complementary to the injunction" with regard to the
Agni-hotra and the like.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The identity of the vidyās being thus established, the author
explains its purpose.
"And" meditations "being the same", their special features
are to be combined together. The sense is that the special
features or details found in one vidyā are to be applied to others as
well, "on account of the non-difference of meaning", i.e. on account
of the unity of purpose. "As in case of what is complementary
to injunction," i e. just as there is the combination everywhere
of what is complementary to the injunctions regarding the Agni-
hotra and the rest,—like that.¹ Hence it is established that on account
of the non-difference of injunctions and the rest, vidyās or meditations
are the same, and that their special features are to be combined
together.
Here ends the section entitled "The understanding in all the
Vedāntas" (1)
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
They take this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Inter-
pretation same.
¹ I.e. in the Karma-Kāṇḍa, the special features or aṅgas of a sacrifice
are mentioned in various places and not in the same place; yet when the sacrifice
is performed, all these scattered features and details are combined. Similarly,
the special details of a particular vidyā or meditation may be mentioned in
various places; yet when it is practised, all these details are to be brought
together.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 6.
584 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 2.]
Baladeva
This is sūtra 6 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa
here (two sūtras) concerned with the problem of the coalescence of
the attributes of the Lord. Brahman is described variously in various
texts. In one place, He is described as Kṛṣṇa, in another as Rāma,
in another as Nṛsiṁha and so on. Hence the problem is whether
all of these different attributes of the Lord,—His sweetness, heroism,
terribleness, and so on—are to be combined when meditating on Him,
or not. The prima facie view is that they being contradictory attributes
are not to be combined. Hence the reply: “And if (the meditation) be
the same, the combination (of attributes) (is permissible), on account
of the non-difference of the object (viz. Brahman), as in the case of
what is complementary to injunction”. That is, in the case of the
common meditation on pure Brahman, the object of meditation being
the same, all the attributes are to be combined, just as Agni-hotra
being the same, all its details are to be combined ¹
Adhikaraṇa 2: The section entitled “Differ-
ence”. (Sūtras 6–9)
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 6)
SŪTRA 6
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (THERE IS) DIFFERENCE (BETWEEN THE
TWO UDGĪTHA-VIDYĀS) ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIPTURAL TEXT, (WE
REPLY.) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DIFFERENCE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
It is stated in the Vājasaneyaka: “Then, verily, they said to this
breath in the mouth: ‘Sing the udgītha for us’. ‘So be it’—that
breath sang the udgītha for them” (Bṛh. 1.3.7 ²). And it is stated
in the Chāndogya too: “Then, verily, he who is this chief vital-breath
him they worshipped as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.2.7 ³). On the doubt,
viz. whether the vidyās are the same here, or different, the prima
facie view is that the vidyās are the same. If it be objected that
¹ G.B. 3.3.6, pp 119-120, Chap. 3.
² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. ³ Op. cit.

[sū. 3. 3. 6.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 585
in the Vājasaneyaka text: ‘ “Sing the udgītha for us” ’ (Bṛh 1.3.7),
breath is said to be a subject, while in the Chāndogya text. “Him
as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.2 7), it is said to be an object Hence
the vidyās are different,—(the prima facie objector replies:) “no”,
“on account of non-difference” in the introductory part, i.e. because
in the texts: “Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha” (Bṛh.
1.3.1 ¹), “They took the udgītha, (thinking ) with this we shall kill ²
them” the udgītha alone appears to be the object to be meditated
on (Chānd. 1.2.1 ³) Hence it is established that the meditations are
the same.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been said above that the vidyās, though recorded in many
places, are really identical as the injunctions and the rest are so, and
it has been shown that their special features are to be mutually
combined. Now, wishing to point out the difference of several vidyās,
the author is first stating the prima facie view.
Having begun thus: “The gods and the demons were the offspring
of Prajāpati” (Bṛh. 1.3.1), having mentioned the vow of the gods,
viz.: “Those gods said: ‘Let us overcome the demons at the sacrifice
with the udgītha’ ” (Bṛh 1 3.1), and having shown how they failed to
realise their purpose, i.e. to destroy the demons through speech and
the rest, the Vājasaneyins record how they finally overcame the
demons through the knowledge of the udgītha thus · “Then, verily,
they said to the breath in the mouth: ‘Sing the udgītha for us’.
‘So be it,’ that breath sang the udgītha for them” (Bṛh 1.3.7). They
further state the fruit of the knowledge of the udgītha thus · “He
becomes superior by himself, his hateful enemy (becomes inferior) who
knows thus” (Bṛh. 1 3.7).
Having begun thus: “Then, verily, the gods took the udgītha,
(thinking) ‘With this we shall kill ⁴ them’ ” (Chānd. 1.2 1), and
having shown, as before, how they failed to realise their purpose though
striving hard, the Chandogas too record how they finally overcame
the demons through the knowledge of the udgītha thus “Then, verily,
¹ R, ŚK.
² Correct quotation: “abhibhaviṣyāmaḥ”, meaning “ we shall overcome”.
Vide Chānd. 1.2 1, p. 20.
³ R, ŚK.
⁴ For correct quotation see footnote 2, above.

586 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 6.
ADH. 2.]
he who is the chief vital-breath,—him they worshipped as the udgītha"
(Chānd. 1.2.7). They, further, state the fruit of the knowledge thus:
"So exactly he falls to pieces who wishes evil to one who knows thus"
(Chānd 1.2.8 ¹)
On the doubt, viz whether here the vidyās are identical or
different,—we (i.e. prima facie objectors) say: The vidyās are the
same. Why? "On account of the non-difference" of injunctions
and the rest. Thus, the injunction, expressed by the root 'to know',
is the same, the fruit too, viz the overcoming of the demons, is
the same; the form, as well, is the same as the object to be meditated
on, viz the udgītha viewed as the vital-breath, is so; and the name,
too, viz. 'udgītha-meditation' is the same.
If it be objected: There is "difference", i.e. there is difference
from the admitted sameness of the vidyās, i.e. the vidyās are not
identical. Why? In the text: " 'Sing the udgītha for us.' That
breath sang the udgītha" (Bṛh. 1.3.7), the vital-breath is indicated
as a subject by the Vājins by a word in the nominative case. But in
the text: "Him, the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.2.7), it is described as an
object, having the form of the udgītha, by the Chāndogas by a word
in the accusative case,—on account of such scriptural texts,—

¹ Vide the udgītha-vidyā or the doctrine of the udgītha in Bṛhadāraṇyaka
and Chāndogya.—
(a) Bṛh. 1.3.—The story begins: The gods and the demons, the offspring
of Prajāpati fought with one another for the worlds. The gods, then resolved
to overcome the demons at the sacrifice by the udgītha. So they asked speech
to sing the udgītha for them. But the demons, coming to know of this, rushed
upon it and pierced it with evil. Thereupon the gods successively approached
the in-breath, the eye, the ear and the mind, each of which was however corrupted
by the demons. Finally, they approached the chief vital-breath which sang
the udgītha for them, and when the demons rushed upon it, trying to pierce
it with evil, they themselves were scattered and perished (Bṛh. 1.3.1–1.3.7).
(b) Chānd. 1.2.—A very similar account given. The story begins: The
gods and the demons, the offspring of Prajāpati fought with one another, and the
gods took the udgītha, thinking that they would overcome the demons with it.
Then they worshipped the breath in the nose as the udgītha, but the demons
pierced it with evil. Thereupon, they successively worshipped as the udgītha
speech, the eye, the ear and the mind, each of which were, however, corrupted
by the demons. Finally, they worshipped the chief vital-breath as the udgītha,
and when the demons tried to corrupt it, they themselves fell to pieces (Chānd
1.2.1–1.2.7).

[sū. 3. 3. 7.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 587
(We, i.e the prima facie objectors, reply.) "no", because in the
texts: '"Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha"' (Bṛh. 1.3.1),
"They took the udgītha, (thinking) 'With this we shall kill them'"
(Chānd. 1.2.1), the udgītha alone appears to be the object to be medi-
tated on. Nor can it be said that this difference of case-endings
would make them differ in major points¹ In the text: '"Sing the
udgītha for us"' (Bṛh. 1.3.7), the udgītha which is really an object is
said to be a subject figuratively
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 7 in his commentary He does not take it to be
setting forth a prima facie view, and does not begin a new adhikaraṇa
here, but continues the topic of the coalescence of the different attri-
butes of the Lord. Hence the sūtra. "If it be objected that the con-
trary is the case (i.e. all the attributes of the Lord are not to be combined
while meditating on Him), (we reply.) no, on account of non-specifi-
cation, (i.e because there is no specific text to the effect)".²
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 7-9)
SŪTRA 7
"OR (THERE IS) NO (SAMENESS OF THE VIDYĀS), ON ACCOUNT OF
THE DIFFERENCES OF THE SUBJECT-MATTERS, AS IN THE CASE OF
BEING HIGHER THAN THE HIGH."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
With regard to it we reply:
The vidyās are not identical. Having begun by designating
the praṇava, which is a part of the udgītha, as the object to be wor-
shipped, in the text: "Let one meditate on the syllable 'Om' as the
¹ E.g. the war between the gods and the demons; the approach of the
gods to speech, eye, ear and mind; the successful attempt of the demons to
corrupt them, their unsuccessful attempt to corrupt the chief vital-breath; the
final overcoming of the demons by the chief vital-breath as the udgītha, etc.
² G.B. 3.3.7, pp. 120-121, Chap. 3.
8