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

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

[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'."

596 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 10.
ADH. 3.]
prima facie view is that since they have not been mentioned in those
scriptural texts as belonging to the vital-breath, they are not to be
so included.
With regard to it, we reply "These," i.e. the attributes of being
richest and the best belonging to speech and so on, are to be accepted
as belonging to the vital-breath, "elsewhere" than in the Chāndogya
and the rest, i e in the meditations on the vital-breath of the Kauṣī-
takins as well. Why? "On account of the non-difference of every-
thing," i c because in all the three dialogues the cause of the seniority
and excellence of the vital-breath, the object to be meditated on, is the
very same Just as in the meditations on the vital-breath in the
Chāndogya and the rest, the dependence of speech and the rest and of
the body on the vital-breath, as well as the connection of the vital-
breath with the attributes of being the richest and the rest have been
stated with a view to establishing the seniority and excellence of the
vital-breath,—so in the meditations on the vital-breath in the Kauṣītaki
too, the attributes of speech and the rest, such as being the richest and
so on, have been stated with the same view to establishing the seniority
and excellence of the vital-breath. The text: "Then these divi-
nities said to Father Prajāpati 'Who among us is the best?' He,
Prajāpati, said: 'That one among you, on whose departure the body
appears to be most miserable, is the best'. Then speech went out",¹
and so on, shows that speech and the rest, their attributes, as well as
the body depend on the vital-breath. Here, their own attributes of
being the richest and the rest are not attributed to the vital-breath
by speech and the rest. Hence they are to be ascribed to the
vital-breath,—this is established
Here ends the section entitled "Non-difference of everything" (3).
COMPARISON
Śāṃkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha
The interpretation of the phrase: "Sarvābhedāt" different, viz.
"on account of the non-difference of the prāṇa-vidyā in the three
Upaniṣads". That is, the meditation on the vital-breath is every-
1 Cf the very similar passages in Chānd. 5.1 7–5.1.8.

{sū. 3. 3 11.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 597
where the same, and hence the special features mentioned in one place
are to be ascribed to others ¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 11 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as
forming an adhikarana by itself, concerned with an entirely different
topic, viz the acts of the Lord Hence the sūtra: "(The acts of the
Lord, viz. the deeds performed by him in His infancy and so on are
eternal) on account of the non-difference of all (viz. of the Lord and
His companions) they (manifest themselves) elsewhere (i.e. in another
place and time)". That is, the Lord and His companions, viz. the
freed souls, exist subsequently in other places and times and enact
the same parts In this sense, those acts of the Lord which He
performs through His cit-śakti are eternal, while those acts which
He performs through matter and so on are non-eternal ²
Adhikarana 4. The section entitled "Bliss".
(Sūtras 11–17)
SŪTRA 11
"BLISS AND THE REST (ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD EVERYWHERE),
(ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DIFFERENCE) OF THE CHIEF."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The substratum of attributes (viz. Brahman) being the same,
the attributes like "bliss and the rest" are to be inserted in all the
meditations on the Highest.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, the question of the combination of the essential attributes
of Brahman is being considered.
The phrase: 'On account of non-difference' is to be supplied (from
the preceding aphorism). On the doubt, viz. whether the attributes
of Brahman, such as, bliss and the rest, are to be included in
all meditations on Brahman or not—the suggestion is: these attributes
are not to be so included, because the texts of every Vedānta are
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.10, p. 770; Bh. B. 3.3.10, p. 171; ŚK. B. 3.3.10, pp. 298 ff.
² G.B. 3.3.11, pp. 130–133, Chap. 3.

598 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 12.
ADH. 4 ]
complete by themselves and do not require other texts to complete
their meaning, because there is no restriction with regard to the
inclusion of qualities not mentioned in a particular section; and
because the meditating devotees can attain their goals from that very
knowledge which they derive from a particular section where certain
attributes are recorded,—
We reply: On account of the sameness "of the chief ", i.e. as
Brahman, the substratum of attributes, is the common object to be
meditated on in all these Brahma-vidyās, His attributes, viz "bliss
and the rest", are to be comprised everywhere It being impossible
for texts to have a complete sense in isolation, the attributes, not
mentioned in a particular section, should, nevertheless, be inserted
there from another section for the benefit of meditating devotees
Baladeva
This is sūtra 12 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as
forming an adhikarana by itself. Interpretation same.
SŪTRA 12
"(THERE IS) NO RELEVANCY OF (THE ATTRIBUTES OF) HAVING
JOY FOR THE HEAD AND THE REST, FOR (THERE WILL BE) IN-
CREASE AND DECREASE (ON THE PART OF BRAHMAN) IF (THERE
BE) DIFFERENCE (OF LIMBS ON HIS PART) "
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The attributes of having joy for the head and the rest do not
constitute the essential nature and attributes of the Highest,—since
"if there be difference" of limbs like the head and the rest, then
there will result increase and decrease on the part of Brahman.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. then, on account of the non-difference of
Brahman, the attributes, mentioned in the Taittirīya-text: "Of him
joy alone is the head, delight the right wing, excessive delight the
left wing, bliss the soul, Brahman the tail, the foundation " (Tait.
2.5), too should be comprised everywhere like His essential attributes
of bliss and the rest,—the author replies:

[sū. 3. 3. 13.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 599
The attributes of having joy for the head and the rest are not
necessary for a clear understanding of the nature and attributes of
Brahman,—since they are not His essential attributes. Otherwise, "if
there be difference" of limbs like the head and the rest, then there must
be "increase and decrease" on the part of Brahman. If that be so,
texts like "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait. 2.1) will
come to be contradicted.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
The interpretation of the last portion, viz. 'upacayāpacayau hi
bhede" different, viz. "because increase and decrease are possible
only if there be difference". That is, lower and higher degrees like
joy, delight, excessive delight, bliss and so on, which are all different,
are possible only if there be a plurality of beings, i e only on the part
of ordinary enjoyers, (and hence they are not possible on the part of
Brahman who is one only).
Śrīkaṇṭha
He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself
SŪTRA 13
"BUT THE OTHER (ATTRIBUTES ARE TO BE COMBINED), ON ACCOUNT
OF THE SAMENESS OF THE PURPORT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"But" as the substratum of attributes (viz. Brahman) is the
same everywhere, the attributes like bliss and the rest are to be
combined.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"But" bliss and the rest, "other" than (the attributes of) having
the joy as the head and so on, are to be supplied everywhere, "on
account of the sameness of the purport", i.e. "on account of the
sameness", i.e. identity everywhere, "of the purport", i.e. of the
object to be demonstrated, viz. Brahman, the substratum of attributes.
As He is not described as a person everywhere, so those (attributes
of having the joy for the head and so on), if applied (everywhere),

600 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 14.
ADH. 4.]
would be purposeless. In order that there may be a clear
knowledge of the real nature of Brahman, bliss and the rest are to
be comprised everywhere, as they are connected with the real
nature of Brahman This aphorism is meant for indicating the
reason why bliss and the rest should be included everywhere, and
also for suggesting that it is simply meaningless to include others
everywhere
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation of the phrase: “artha-sāmānyāt different, viz.
“on account of (their) equality with the object itself”. That is, the
attributes of bliss and the rest, determining the very nature of the
thing (viz. Brahman) are similar to the thing itself and are accordingly
included in all meditations just like the thing itself.¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 14 in his commentary. Literal interpretation
different, though the conclusion is the same. Thus: “But others
(i.e. the other attributes mentioned in the Taittirīya) (are to be com-
bined everywhere), on account of the sameness of the result”. That
is, the meditation on Brahman, as possessed of the attributes of all-
pervasiveness and the rest, mentioned in the Taittirīya, leads to the
attainment of Brahman, just as the meditation on Him as possessed
of other attributes, mentioned in other Vedāntas, does.²
SŪTRA 14
“(THE DESIGNATION OF BRAHMAN AS HAVING JOY FOR HIS HEAD
AND SO ON IS) FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEDITATION, ON ACCOUNT OF
THE ABSENCE OF (ANOTHER) PURPOSE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The designation: “Of him, joy alone is the head” (Tait. 2.5 ³)
and so on, on the other hand, serve the purpose of meditation, “on
account of the absence of ” any other “purpose”.
¹ Śrī B. 3.3.13, p. 277, Part 1; Śk. B. 3.3.13, Part 9.
² G.B 3.3.14, p. 137, Chap. 3. ³ R.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 14.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 601
Vedānta-kaustubha
In that case, the teaching of the attributes of having joy for
the head and the rest will have no meaning,—to this the author
replies.
The teaching, concerned with determining Brahman as a person,
viz. “Of him, joy alone is the head” (Tait. 2.5) and so on, on the other
hand, is “for the purpose of meditation”, i.e. for the sake of
helping easy comprehension. That is, in the absence of any other
purpose, this alone is the purpose of such a designation.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
They begin a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with
an entirely different topic, viz. a discussion about a text in the Kaṭho-
paniṣad Thus, in Kaṭha 3.10–3.11 it is said that sense-objects are
higher than the sense-organs, the mind is higher than the sense-objects
and so on and finally the Person is said to be the highest of all. The
question is as to whether each of these, viz. sense-objects and so on,
is high or only the Person. The answer is given in this sūtra thus:
“(The Person alone is designated as the High) for the purpose of
meditation, (and not others) on account of the absence of purpose”.
That is, there is no necessity for designating the sense-objects, the
sense-organs and the rest as high, while there is such a necessity for
designating the Person as high, viz.—meditation.¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
He also begins a new adhikaraṇa here (four sūtras), concerned
with the question, viz. whether the self consisting of food and the
rest (Tait. 2.2 ff.) too are to be meditated on constantly as the self
consisting of bliss is. The answer is: “(They aro not to be meditated
on constantly) on account of the absence of purpose (for such modi-
tations)”. That is, the meditations on the self consisting of food and
the rest have a purpose only so long as the self consisting of bliss is
not reached. But when it is reached, they becomo meaningless.
Hence, such meditations are not to be practised perpetually.²
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.14, pp. 773-774; Bh. B. 3.3.14, p. 180.
² ŚK. B. 3.3.14.

[SŪ 3. 3. 15.
602 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.]
SŪTRA 15
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE TERM 'SELF' ALSO"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
As head, wings and the rest cannot possibly belong to the soul,
designated thus: "Another internal self" (Tait 2 5), that designation
serves the purpose of meditation on Him.
Vedānta-kaustubha
That the designation. "Joy alone is the head" (Tait. 2.5) in the
beginning of the text about that which consists of bliss serves the
purpose of meditation and is concerned only with demonstrating
(Brahman) as a person, is ascertained "from the term 'self' also".
Thus, as head of the form of joy, wings and the rest cannot
possibly belong to an object, which is denoted by the term 'self' in
the text "Another internal self is that which consists of bliss"
(Tait. 2 5), and the real nature of which is different from joy,
delight, excessive delight and the rest,—it is merely for helping one
to meditate on the self that in the text: "Of him, joy alone is the
head" (Tait. 2.5) (the self) is designated as a person,—this is known
from the term 'self' as well
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
They conclude here the discussion about the abovo Kaṭha-text.
The immediately following passage designates the Person as the self.
This also proves that the Person alone is intended to be designated
as high. The designation of the rest as high is simply for the purpose
of showing the supremacy of the Person.¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
He continues the topic whether the selves consisting of food,
consisting of the vital-breath and the rest are to be meditated on
perpetually or not, and gives the second reason why they are not to
be so meditated here. The term 'self' is applied to each of the selves,
consisting of food and so on. This shows that these denote the pre-
siding deities of food and the rest. Now, Brahman alone is to be
¹ Ś B. 3.3.15, p. 774; Bh. B 3.3.15, p. 180.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 16.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 603
meditated on and not any other deity. For this reason too the
selves consisting of food and so on are not to be meditated on.¹
SŪTRA 16
“(THERE IS THE) UNDERSTANDING OF THE SELF (IN THE TAITTI-
RĪYA) AS IN OTHER (PLACES), ON ACCOUNT OF WHAT FOLLOWS.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text: “Another internal self” (Tait. 2.5²), by the term
‘self’ there is the “understanding of” the Supreme Soul alone, just
as in the passage: “The soul, verily, was this, one alone, in the begin-
ning” (Ait. Ār. 2.4.1³), by the term ‘self’ the Supreme Self alone is
meant. Further, another text too, subsequent to the text about that
which consists of bliss, viz. “He desired: ‘May I be many’ ” (Tait.
2.5⁴), supports this meaning.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. Since we know that in the preceding cases
the term ‘self’ refers to what is not the self, it cannot be said that in
the text: “Another internal self is that which consists of bliss” (Tait.
2.5) the term ‘self’ refers to the Self,—the author replies:
In the text: “Another internal self” (Tait. 2.5), by the term
‘self’ there is the “understanding of the self”, i.e. the apprehension
of the self, or the Supreme Soul alone. “As in other (places),” i.e.
just as in a text other than the text: “Another internal self is that
which consists of bliss” (Tait. 2.5),—viz. in the Aitareya-text: “The
self, verily, was this, one alone, in the beginning, there was nothing
else blinking. He thought: ‘Shall I create worlds?’ He created
these worlds” (Ait. Ār. 2.4.1), by the term ‘self’ the Soul is under-
stood, so is the case here. This is definitely ascertained also from a
text which is subsequent to the text concerned with the soul
,consisting of bliss, viz. from the text: “He desired: ‘May I be many’ ”
(Tait. 2.6).
¹ ŚK. B. 3.3.15, p 309, Part 9. ² R, ŚK.
³ P. 118. ⁴ R, B.
9

[SŪ. 3. 3. 17
604 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.]
COMPARISON
Saṁkara and Bhāskara
They begin a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with
a different problem, viz. a discussion about a passage in the Aitareya-
āraṇyaka (2.4 1). The question is as to whether the term ‘self’ in
this passage stands for Brahman or for Hiraṇyagarbha. The answer
is: “(There is) the understanding of the self (i.e. Brahman) (by the
term ‘self’ in the passage), as in other (places) (i.e. in Tait. 2 1, etc ),
on account of what follows (1.e. the word ‘perceives’)”.¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
He continues the above topic, viz. whether the selves consisting
of food and so on are to be meditated on or not. The answer is that
as the self consisting of bliss is nothing but the Supreme Brahman,
that alone is to be meditated on and not the other selves. Hence the
sūtra. “(In Tait. 2.5 by the term ‘self’ there is) the understanding
of the self (i e. Brahman), as in other places (i.e. in Tait. 2.1, etc.),
(this is known also) from what follows”. Thus, literal interpretation
is the same, though import different.²
SŪTRA 17
“IF IT BE OBJECTED • ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONNECTION (OF THE
TERM ‘SELF’ WITH WHAT IS NOT-SELF, THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDING
OF SELF HERE, WE REPLY.) THERE MAY BE (SUCH AN UNDERSTAND-
ING), ON ACCOUNT OF ASCERTAINMENT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that since the term ‘self’ is found to refer to
the vital-breath and the rest in the previous cases, in the text: “The
self, consisting of bliss” (Tait 2.5³), the Supreme Self is not meant
by the term ‘self’—(we reply:) “There may be” indeed such an
understanding by that term,—as we know that in the previous cases
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.16, pp. 775 ff.; Bh. B. 3.3.16, p. 180.
² ŚK. B. 3.3.16, pp. 309-310, Part 9.
³ Not quoted by others.
9B

[sū. 3 3. 17.
ADH. 4 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 605
too, the term ‘self’ refers to the not-self simply because those not-

• selves are viewed as the Supreme Self.
  Vedānta-kaustubha
  If it be objected that as in the previous cases, e.g. in the text.
  “Another internal self is that which consists of the vital-breath”
  (Tait. 2 2) and so on, the term ‘self’ refers to the not-self, so in the
  text: ‘Another internal self is that which consists of bliss” (Tait. 2 5)
  the Highest Self is not referred to by the term ‘self’,—
  (We reply:) “There may be” indeed the apprehension of the
  Highest Self by the term ‘self’. Why? “On account of ascertain-
  ment.” That is, we have, first, in mind the idea of the Highest Self,
  mentioned previously in the passage: “From him, verily, the ether
  arose” (Tait. 2.1); then, with a view to determining His nature and
  attributes, the term ‘self’ is made to refer to the selves consisting of
  food and so on, simply because they are viewed as the Highest Self 1
  Hence it is established that attributes like bliss and the rest alone are
  to be combined for the sake of determining the real nature of the
  substratum of attributes (viz. Brahman), and not those of having joy
  for the head and the like which are not His (essential) attributes.
  Here ends the section entitled “Bliss” (4).
  COMPARISON
  Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
  Here they conclude the discussion about the above Aitareya-
  āraṇyaka text. “If it be objected that on account of the connected
  meaning (of the passage as a whole, i.e. because of the reference to
  the creation of the world and so on, Hiraṇyagarbha is here denoted
  by the term ‘self’), (we reply:) there may be (the understanding of
  Brahman here) on account of ascertainment (viz. that the self is said
  to be the one).” 2
  1 I.e. right from the beginning of the section we get the idea that the
  Highest Self is the topic of discussion, and hence the subsequent references to
  the not-self in the chapter are made with the Highest Self in mind.
  2 Ś.B. 3.3.17, pp. 777-778, Bh B. 3.3.17, pp. 180-181. For Śaṁkara’s
  alternative explanation of these two sūtras, vide Ś.B. 3.3.17, pp. 338 ff.

606 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3 18.
ADH. 5 ]
Śrīkaṇṭha
Here he concludes the discussion as to whether the selves consisting
of food and the rest are to be meditated on or not. Hence the sūtra:
“If it be objected that on account of the connection (of the term)
‘self’ with the selves consisting of food and so on, these latter too are
to be meditated on like the self consisting of bliss, (we reply .) there
must be the meditation on the self consisting of bliss alone), on account
of ascertainment, (i.e. because the self consisting of bliss is known to
be different from the other selves)”.¹
Adhikaraṇa 5: The section entitled “The tell-
ing of a thing to be done”. (Sūtra 18)
SŪTRA 18
“ON ACCOUNT OF THE TELLING OF A THING TO BE DONE, (ALREADY
ESTABLISHED BY SMṚTI AND CUSTOM,) (THAT IS NOT ENJOINED
BY THE TEXT HERE, BUT) SOMETHING NEW, (I.E. THE MEDITATION
ON WATER AS THE DRESS OF THE VITAL-BREATH.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text: “He should rinse the mouth with water when about
to eat, and should rinse the mouth with water when he has eaten.
Thus indeed he makes the breath non-naked” (Śat. Br. 14.9 2, 15²),
the meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital-breath, not
mentioned before, is enjoined, there being only a re-mention here,
on the other hand, of the rinsing of the mouth with water, already
established by Smṛti and custom.³
¹ ŚK. B. 3.3.17, p. 310, Part 9.
² P. 1103, line 7. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK
³ I.e. the ordinary practice of rinsing the mouth with water before and after
meals is not enjoined by Scripture here, since it is already enjoined by Smṛti
and custom and Scripture does not enjoin what has already been enjoined
Hence the text simply re-mentions this ordinary custom, but does not enjoin
it. What it enjoins here is something new, viz. the meditation on water as the
dress of the vital-breath.

[sū. 3. 3. 18.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 607
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now a particular subsidiary part of the above-mentioned medita-
tion on the vital-breath is being considered. In the Vājasaneyaka
it is said that the vital-breath asked speech and the rest · ‘What is
my food, what is my dress?’ (Bṛh. 6.1.14; Śat. Br. 14.9.2, 14¹).
They replied: ‘“Whatever there is here, as far as dogs, worms, crawling
and flying insects,—that is your food; water is your dress”’ (Bṛh.
6.1.14, Śat. Br. 14.9.2, 14). After that we read: “Those versed in the
Veda who know this rinse the mouth with water when they are about
to eat, and rinse the mouth with water when they have eaten. So
indeed they think that they are making the breath non-naked”
(Bṛh 6 1.14), “Hence he who knows this should rinse the mouth with
water when about to eat and should rinse the mouth with water when
he has eaten. Thus indeed he makes the breath non-naked” (Śat.
Br. 14 9.2, 15).
In the very same manner, we read the following in the Chāndogya
as well. “He said: ‘What will be my dress?’ ‘Water,’ they said.
Hence, verily, those who are about to eat clothe it before and after
with water. It is accustomed to receive a dress, it becomes non-
naked” (Chānd. 5.2.2).
Here the doubt is as to whether here the rinsing of the mouth is
enjoined or the meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital-
breath, while there is simply a re-mention of the rinsing of the mouth.
If it be suggested · As in the text: “So indeed he makes the
breath non-naked” (Śat. Br. 14 9.2, 15), there is no mention of an
injunctive form referring to the meditation on water as forming the
dress of the vital-breath, and as in this text: “He should rinse
the mouth with water when about to eat” (Śat. Br. 14.9.2, 15), there
is the mention of an injunctive form, it is the rinsing of the mouth
that is enjoined here, and water is designated as forming the dress
of the vital-breath for glorifying the rinsing of the mouth.—
We reply: It is the meditation on water as forming the dress of
the vital-breath—which is “something new”, i e. is something not
mentioned before,—that is alone enjoined here. For this very reason
there is the mention of clothing only ² in the Chāndogya: ‘They

¹ P. 1103, line 3.
² And no mention of the rinsing of the mouth with water

[SŪ. 3. 3. 18.
608 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
clothe it with water" (Chānd. 5.2 2) From the circumstance also
of its being found together with the meditation on food as far as dogs
and so on, (enjoined) in the text: "As far as dogs" (Bṛh 6.1.14;
Śat. Br. 14.9.2, 14), it is known that the meditation on (water) as form-
ing the dress (of the vital-breath) alone is what is enjoined here, but
the rinsing of the mouth with water is not what is enjoined ¹. Why?
"On account of the telling of a thing to be done," i.e. because of the
telling, i.e. mention, of a thing to be done, i.e. of a duty to be performed
daily, already established by Smṛti and custom, and simply re-men-
tioned in the meditation on the vital-breath, as well for the sake of
laying down a clothing of the vital-breath. Hence it is established
that the meditation on the rinsing-water as forming the dress of the
vital-breath is enjoined here as a subsidiary part of the meditation
on the vital-breath, while there is simply a re-mention of the act of
rinsing the mouth with water.
Here ends the section entitled "The telling of a thing to be
done" (5).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 19 in his commentary. He also takes this sūtra
as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, though concerned with an entirely
different topic, viz. the designation of the Lord as Father. He inter-
prets the word "apūrva" in the sūtra as: similar ("a") to what
precedes ("pūrva"). Hence the sūtra: ‘(The attributes of fatherhood
and the like), similar to the preceding ones (viz. bliss, and so on)
(are to be comprised in all meditations on Brahman), on account of the
¹ I.e. the preceding passage: "Whatever there is here, as far as dogs . . .
that is your food", does not enjoin the use of the food of all kinds,—since that
would be contrary to Scripture and impossible,—but merely enjoins the medita-
tion on all food as the food of the vital-breath. Therefore, we must conclude
that the text: "Water is your dress" also, which forms the immediate conti-
nuation of the above passage, does not enjoin the act of rinsing the mouth with
water, but only the meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital-breath.

[sŪ. 3. 3 19.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 609
statement of the effect, (i.e. the fruit, i e. because such meditations
also lead to salvation)”.¹
Adhikaraṇa 6: The section ontitled “In the
same”. (Sūtra 19)
SŪTRA 19
“IN THE SAME (BRANCH) TOO, (IT IS) THUS, (I E. THERE IS
IDENTITY OF VIDYĀS), ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DIFFERENCE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In a branch of the Vājasaneyins,² i e. in the ‘Mystery of fire’,³
viz. in the section which beginning: “Let one meditate on truth as
Brahman” (Śat. Br. 10.6.3, 1 ⁴), continues: “Let one meditate on the
self, consisting of mind” (Śat. Br. 10.6.3, 2 ⁵) and so on; as well as in
the Bṛhadāraṇyaka text: “This person consists of mind” (Bṛh. 5.6.1 ⁶),
the meditation taught by Śāṇḍilya is recorded And just as the
vidyās, mentioned in different branches, are identical owing to the
identity of the objects meditated on, so the Śāṇḍilya-vidyās, though
mentioned in the same branch, are identical.⁷ The vidyās being the
same, their special features are to be combined together.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now (the author) points out the identity of the meditations
mtuited by Śāṇḍilya.
The meditation taught by Śāṇḍilya is recorded in the ‘Mystery
of Fire’ in a branch of the Vājasaneyins thus: “Let one meditate on
truth as Brahman. Now, verily, this person consists of thought.
¹ G.B. 3.3.19, pp. 143-144, Chap. 3.
² The followers of the white Yajur-veda.
³ The name of the tenth book of the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa.
⁴ P. 806, line 14. R, Bh.
⁵ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
⁶ Op. cit.
⁷ Vide V.P.S. 3.3.2.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 19.
610 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.]
With whatever thought he departs from this world, that he becomes
on departing to the other world. Let him meditate on the self, consist-
ing of mind, having the breath for its body, of the form of light,
having true resolves, having the ether for its soul" ¹ (Śat. Br. 10.6.3,
1-2 ²). In that very branch, i.e. in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, that medita-
tion is recorded once again thus: "This person within this heart
consists of mind, is of the nature of light, is like a grain of rice or a
barley-corn. He, verily, is the ruler of all, the Lord of all, governs
all this, whatsoever there is" (Bṛh. 5.6.1).
Here the doubt is as to whether the two vidyās mentioned
in the 'Mystery of Fire' and Bṛhadāraṇyaka are identical or not.
The suggestion being that on account of repetition the vidyās are
different, just as on account of the five-fold repetition, the preliminary
offerings are so, —
We reply: Just as the vidyās mentioned in different branches are
the same, and consequently their special features are combined, so "in
the same", i.e. in the same branch, the vidyās are identical, and conse-
quently their special features are combined. Why? "On account of
non-difference," i.e. because of the identity, in both the places,
of the objects to be meditated on, viz. (the selves) endowed with the
attributes of consisting of mind and the rest.
If it be objected: There may be identity of vidyās in both the cases,
and the combination of the attributes like 'being the ruler of all' and
so on. But the laying down, over again, of (the attributes like)
'consisting of mind' and the rest does not stand to reason, — for if
there be the laying down of the unknown attributes in one place, then
the realization of our purpose results simply through a combination
of them elsewhere.³ —
¹ The phrase 'having the ether for its soul' is put immediately after 'of
the form of light'. The text really is: " . . . . having the form of light, having
the ether for its soul, changing its shape at will, swift as thought, having true
resolves, having true purposes . . . ."
² P. 806, lines 14-16. Cf. a very similar Śāṇḍilya-vidyā in Chānd.
3.14.1-4.
³ I.e. the attributes like 'being the ruler of all', etc., mentioned in the Bṛh.,
but not in the Śat. Br., — are to be inserted in the latter, and as such they serve
a useful purpose. But the attributes like 'consisting of mind', etc. — mentioned
in both the Bṛh. and Śat. Br. — are mere useless repetitions, serving no purpose.

[sū. 3. 3. 19.
ADH 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 611
We reply No, because the mention of several already-mentioned
attributes serves the purpose of recognition ¹ Hence it is established
that in both cases the vidyās are identical.
Here ends the section entitled “In the same” (6).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 20 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming
an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the problem whether the Lord
is to be meditated on as a pure soul or as possessed of a body. The
prima facie view is that He is to be meditated on as a pure soul only,
for if one is to meditate on the form of the Lord, then he will have to
meditate on His eye sometimes, on His ears sometimes and so on and
as such no uniform and uninterrupted flow of the devotional sentiment,
which alone is the means to salvation, will be possible. The answer
is given in this sūtra. He reads “samāna” instead of “samāne”.
Hence the sūtra. “Even (in the meditation on the form of the Lord,
the sentiment is) the same thus, on account of the non-difference (of
the Lord’s different limbs, such as eyes, and so on, with His very
self)”. That is, just as a golden image is gold throughout and by
looking at the different parts of the image, viz. the eyes and so on,
one does not get different ideas, but only one idea, viz. that of gold,
so the different parts of the Lord are identical with the Lord Himself
and hence they do not give rise to different ideas, but to one idea
of the Lord. Hence the meditation on the Lord as having a form
does indeed lead to release ²
¹ I.e. in order that we may recognize the two vidyās to be identical, there
must be mentioned some features common to both. Hence the repetition of
certain attributes in two identical vidyās is not useless.
² G.B. 3.3.20, p. 145, Chap. 3.—“Evam api cakṣurādīnām vailakṣaṇyena
bhāne’pi samāna eka-rasaḥ sa eva hiraṇya-pratimādi vat bhagavān vodhyaḥ.”

612 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 20
ADH 7.]
Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled "The con-
nection". (Sūtras 20–22)
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 20)
SŪTRA 20
"ON ACCOUNT OF CONNECTION, SO ELSEWHERE ALSO"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Just as the Śāṇḍilya-vidyās are identical, and through connection
with them, there is the combination of special features, "so" on account
of their connection with the same vidyā through the introductory
passage: "Truth is Brahman" (Bṛh 5.4.1 ¹), the two names, mentioned
in the scriptural texts: "His secret name is 'Day'—this in reference
to the presiding deities" (Brh. 5.5 3 ²), "His secret name is 'I'—this in
reference to the self" (Bṛh. 5 5 4 ³), are to be combined,—this is the
prima facie view.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, having suggested a prima facie view, viz Just as owing
to the identity of the objects to be meditated on, there is combination
of attributes in the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, so there is combination of the
names in the meditation on the true Brahman also, having the mystic
words⁴ for His body,—(the author) disposes of it in two aphorisms.
In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, we read, beginning: "Truth is Brahman"
(Bṛh. 5.4.1), and continuing: "Now the real is the yonder sun. The
Person who is there in that orb and the Person who is here in the right
eye" (Bṛh. 5 5.2) and so on. Here, having declared that the true
Brahman is the object to be meditated on—in the orb of the sun as
well as in the right eye—as having the mystic words as His body in the
passage: "Bhūr is his head, Bhuvar is his arms, Svar is his feet" (Bṛh.
5.5.3), the text teaches two secret names as complementary to the
meditation. Here, the true Brahman, the support of the sun and the
support of the eye, is successively stated to have the name 'Day' and
the name 'I', thus: "His secret name is 'Day'—this in reference to
the presiding deities" (Bṛh. 5.5.3), "His secret name is 'I'—this in
reference to the self" (Bṛh. 5.5.4).

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.
³ Op. cit. ⁴ Viz. Bhūr, Bhuvar and Svar