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

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

588 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3 3. 7.
ADH. 2.]
udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1 1 ¹), the text goes on to say: “They took the
udgītha” (Chānd. 1 2.1 ²); and hence in the Chāndogya, the praṇava,
a part of the udgītha, is enjoined as the object to be viewed as the vital-
breath In the Vājasaneyaka, on the other hand, in accordance with
the introductory passage, containing no specification, viz. ‘ “Let us
overcome (the demons) by the udgītha” ’ (Brh. 1 3 1 ³), the entire
udgītha is the object to be viewed as the vital-breath. Hence,
the introductory parts being thus different, the vidyās themselves
must be so; just as in spite of the sameness of injunctions, viz. that
the praṇava, which is a part of the udgītha, is to be viewed as the
Highest Self,—the injunction that the udgītha is to be viewed as
the golden Person is different from the injunction that it is to be
viewed as quahfied by the attributes of being higher than the high and
so on.⁴
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author refutes the above view.
The words “or not” imply that the above view is to be rejected.
The udgītha-meditations are not identical. Why? “On account
of the difference of subject-matters”. The word ‘subject-matter’
means ‘introduction’, i.e. on account of the difference of the intro-
ductory parts. Thus, having begun with the praṇava,—which is a
part of the udgītha, the object of the action of the singer of the ud-
gītha,—as the object to be worshipped in the text: “Let one meditate
on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha (Chānd 1.1.1), the text goes on
to say: “They took the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.2.1); and hence in the
Chāndogya, the praṇava, a part of the udgītha, is stated as the object
to be viewed as the vital-breath. In the Vājasaneyaka, on the other
hand, in accordance with the introductory passage, containing no speci-
¹ S, R, ŚK. ² Not quoted by others. ³ R.
⁴ I.e. in Chānd. 1.6.9 it is said that sāman, i.e the udgītha, is to be
viewed, i.e. meditated on, as the golden Person within the sun; while in Chānd.
1.9.2 it is said that the udgītha is to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes
of being higher than the high and so on. Now, although in both cases the
udgītha is the object enjoined to be meditated on, yet as it is to be meditated
on under two different aspects, in the one case as a golden Person and in the other
as higher than the high and so on,—the two udgītha-meditations are taken to
be different. In the very same manner, here although the same udgītha is en-
joined to be meditated on, yet since in the one case it is to be meditated on as a
part, in the other as the whole, the two udgītha-meditatons are not identical.
8B

[sū. 3. 3. 7.
ADH. 2 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 589
fication, viz. ‘ "Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha" ’ (Bṛh.
1 3 1), the entire udgītha is the object to be viewed as the vital-breath.
Hence as the introductory parts are different, the objects enjoined too
must be so, the things enjoined being different, the forms too must
be so, and on account of that, the vidyās themselves must be different;
just as, even in the same branch ¹, in spite of the sameness of injunc-
tions, viz that the pranava, which is a part of the udgītha, is to
be viewed as the Highest Self,—the injunction that it is to be viewed
as the golden Person is different from the injunction that it is to be
viewed as qualified by the attributes of being higher than the high
and so on.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 8 in his commentary He begins a new adhikarana
here (two sūtras), concerned with an altogether different topic. It
has been pointed out in the previous adhikarana that while meditating
on the Lord, all His attributes are to be combined. Now it is
pointed out in this adhikarana that that is the case with the svaniṣṭha
devotees only, but in the case of the ekāntin devotees, there is no such
combination He interprets the word “prakaraṇa” in the sūtra as
“prakṛṣṭa karaṇam”, i.e. excellent act, viz devotion. Hence the
sūtra: “Or (there is) no (combination of attributes in the case of the
ekāntins) on account of the difference of devotion (i.e. because the
devotion of the ekāntins is one-pointed, while that of the svaniṣṭha
is universal), as in the case of being higher than the high, (i.e. just as
the ekāntin worshipper of the golden Person in the sun does not
combine the qualities of being higher than the high and so on).²
¹ The rule is that meditations are different when the objects meditated on
are different, whether in the same branch or in different branches. If the objects
meditated on are not different, then the meditations are identical, in spite of
repetition, and serve other purposes. See footnote 2, p. 578.
² G.B. 3.2.8, pp. 122-123, Chap. 3.

590 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 8.
ADH. 2.]
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 8
“IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT (OF THE SIMILAR) NAME
(THERE IS SAMENESS OF THE VIDYĀS), (WE REPLY:) THAT HAS
BEEN SAID, ON THE OTHER HAND, (THERE IS) THAT TOO (I E THE
IDENTITY OF NAMES) (EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF IDENTITY OF THE
OBJECTS NAMED).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“If it be objected that on account of name” the vidyās must be
identical,—(we reply:) Under the aphorism: “Or not, on account of
the difference of subject-matter” (Br. Sū. 3 3.7) it has been shown the
mere identity of names is of no great force “On the other hand,”
names may be identical even when the subject-matters enjoined are
different; just as the name ‘Agni-hotra’ applies to the regular Agni-
hotra, and to the Agni-hotra which is a part of the ceremony called
‘Kuṇḍapāyinām ayanam’.¹
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected that “on account of name”, i.e. on account of
the name ‘udgītha-meditation’, the udgītha-vidyās are identical—
(we reply:) The reply to this has been given under the aphorism:
“Or not, on account of the difference of subject-matter” (Br. Sū
3.3.7). That is, the difference of vidyās being established on the
ground of the difference of introductory parts, mere identity of
names cannot make the vidyās identical. Moreover, even two dif-
ferent subject-matters may have identical names, just as the name
‘Agni-hotra’ applies to the regular Agni-hotra and to the Agni-hotra
which is a part of the ceremony called ‘Kuṇḍa-pāyinām ayanam’,
and just as the First-Day sacrifice is to be observed both in the
Twelve-Days’ sacrifice and in the Gavāmayana sacrifice.
1 A particular religious ceremony in which ewers or pitchers are used for
drinking.

[sū. 3. 3. 9.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 591
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 9 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic
that in the case of the ekāntin devotees, there is no combination of
all the attributes of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: "If it be objected
that on account of (the similarity of) name (i.e. because both the
svaniṣṭha and ekāntin are called 'worshipper of Brahman') (the
ekāntin, too, must be called 'worshipper of Brahman') (the ekāntin,
too, must meditate on all the attributes of the Lord), (we reply,)
that has been said (under the previous sūtra), on the contrary, there
is that¹" That is, there is an instance to the effect, viz. the meditation
on the golden Person ² and that on the ether ³ have both the name
'udgītha-meditation', yet the attributes of the one are not combined
in the other.
—————
CORRECT CONCLUSION (end)
SŪTRA 9
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF UNIVERSALITY, (IT IS) APPROPRIATE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
As the praṇava, mentioned in the beginning, is the object to be
meditated on, in all the udgītha-meditations in the Chāndogya, it
is "appropriate" that the word 'udgītha', mentioned in the middle
in the text: "They took the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.2.1), too should
really imply the praṇava. In the Chāndogya the praṇava, a part
of the udgītha, is to be meditated on under the aspect of the vital-
breath; in the Vājasaneyaka, the entire udgītha,—as such, the vidyās
are different.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the first chapter of the Chāndogya, various udgītha-meditations
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ G.B. 3.3.9, pp. 123-124, Chap. 3.
² Chānd. 1.6.9. ³ Chānd. 1.9.2.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 9.
592 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.]
are mentioned. Now, the praṇava,—introduced in the text: “Let one
meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1),—
is the common object to be meditated on as a part of the udgītha.
So it is “appropriate” that the word ‘udgītha’, mentioned in the
middle in the text: “Then, forsooth, the gods took the udgītha”
(Chānd 1 2 1), too should really imply the praṇava. It is often found
that a word denoting the whole denotes its parts, as e g. when one
part of a piece of cloth is burnt, it is said that the cloth is
burnt. This being so, in the Chāndogya, the praṇava alone, denoted
by the term ‘udgītha’ and a part of the udgītha, is the object to be
meditated on under the aspect of the vital-breath. In Vājasaneyaka,
by the term ‘udgītha’ the entire udgītha, that which the singer of the
udgītha sings, is to be understood, i.e. that alone is to be meditated on
under the aspect of the vital-breath. Hence, it is established that
the udgītha-meditation mentioned in the Chāndogya is different from
the udgītha-meditation mentioned in the Vājasaneyaka.
Here ends the section entitled “Difference ” (2).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
They take it as an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation different,
viz. It is said in the Chāndogya (1.1.1) that the ‘Om’ is to be medi-
tated on as the udgītha. Here the Om and the udgītha are designated
as standing in a relation of co-ordination (sāmānādhikaraṇa). Now
the problem is what exactly this co-ordination between the two
implies,—whether adhyāsa or conscious voluntary super-imposition
of one object upon another and thereby thinking the two as identical;
apavāda or bādha, i e. the negation of the former false knowledge of
a thing by the latter correct knowledge; or finally viśeṣaṇa, i e. quali-
fication, distinguishing the thing qualified from other things. The
last is the correct view. The udgītha here specializes and thereby
restricts the Om which extends over the entire Veda,—i.e. only that
Om which is a part of the udgītha is to be meditated on here and not
the Om which extends over the entire Veda. Hence the sūtra: “On
account of the extension (of the Om to the entire Veda), (the view

[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.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 10.
594 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.]
Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled “Non-
difference of everything”. (Sūtra 10)
SŪTRA 10
“ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DIFFERENCE OF EVERYTHING (I.E.
EVERYWHERE, VIZ. CHĀNDOGYA AND BṚHADĀRAṆYAKA), THOSE
(QUALITIES ARE TO BE INSERTED) ELSEWHERE (VIZ. IN THE
KAUṢĪTAKI).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the Chāndogya as well as in the Vājasaneyaka, under the
dialogue of the sense-organs, the vital-breath, endowed with the
attributes of being the oldest and the best, is designated as the object
to be worshipped, and also speech and the rest are designated as
possessed of the attributes of being the richest and so on; and those
attributes are ascribed to the vital-breath. In the dialogue of the
sense-organs in the Kauṣītaki, on the other hand, the attributes of
speech and the rest are stated, but are not ascribed to the vital-
breath. With regard to it, we reply: “Elsewhere”, i.e. in the dialogue
of the sense-organs in the Kauṣītaki as well, they are to be ascribed
to the vital-breath, as in all the three dialogues speech and the rest
are said to be under the control of the vital-breath,—which is the cause
of the seniority and excellence of the latter
Vedānta-kaustubha
While in one place (viz. in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka) the word ‘udgītha’
refers to the whole, in another place (viz. in the Chāndogya) it refers
to a part only and as such does not relate to the whole,—hence the
two udgītha-meditations are different. Likewise since in some cases
the vital-breath is designated as endowed with the attributes of being
the richest and the like, in some cases, again, not so endowed, the medi-
tations on the vital-breath too are different,—the author is refuting
this view now by the maxim of the combination of special features.¹
In the dialogue of the sense-organs, the Chāndogas as well as the
Vājasaneyins demonstrate the vital-breath, endowed with the attri-
butes of being the oldest and the best, as the object to be worshipped
thus: “He who, verily, knows the oldest and the best, becomes, for-
¹ Designated under Br. Sū. 3.3.5

[SŪ. 3. 3. 10.
ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 595
sooth, the oldest and the best of his own people. The vital-breath,
verily, is the oldest and the best" (Bṛh. 6.1.1 ¹) and so on; and they
demonstrate the attributes of speech and the rest, such as: being the
richest and so on, thus: "These divinities, verily, disputed for self-
superiority" ² and so on, "Disputing for self-superiority" (Bṛh
6.1.7 ³) and so on; as well as establish the excellence of the vital-
breath on the ground that speech and the rest and the body have their
existence as well as activities under the control of the vital-breath,
and finally ascribe the attributes of speech and the rest, such as,
being the richest and so on, to the vital-breath, the oldest and the
best, thus: "Then, verily, speech said to him: 'If I am the richest,
you are the richest' " (Chānd. 5.1.13 ⁴) and so on. Thus, according
to them, the object to be worshipped is the vital-breath, endowed
with the attributes of being the oldest, the best, the richest and so on,
as subserving speech and the rest.
In the dialogues of the sense-organs in the branches of the
Kauṣītaki and the rest, on the other hand, the excellence of the vital-
breath is demonstrated, but the attributes of speech and the rest
are not ascribed to it (Kauṣ. 2. 14).
The attributes in question are those belonging to speech, the eye,
the ear and the mind,—namely, being the richest being the support,
being prosperity and being the abode (respectively), to be known from
the following texts: "He who, verily, knows the richest . . . . Speech,
forsooth, is the richest" (Bṛh. 6.1.2; Chānd. 5 1.2), "He who,
verily, knows the support . . . . The eye, forsooth, is the support"
(Bṛh. 6 1.3; Chānd. 5 1.3), "He who, verily, knows prosperity . . . .
The ear, verily, is prosperity" (Bṛh. 6.1 4; Chānd. 4.1.4), "He who,
verily, knows the abode . . . . The mind, verily, is the abode"
(Bṛh. 6 15; Chānd 5.1.5) and so on.
On the doubt, viz. whether these attributes are to be included in
the meditations on the vital-breath of the Kauṣītakins, or not, the
¹ An exactly similar passage—omitting only the word 'svānām', is Chānd.
5.1.1.
² This is evidently a mis-quotation, since it is traceable neither in the
Chānd nor in the Bṛh.
³ Cf. Chānd. 5 1.6.—"Now the sense-organs disputed among themselves
about self-superiority "
⁴ Cf Bṛh. 6.1.4.—"She (i.e. speech) said: 'Verily, wherein I am the richest,
therein you are the richest'."