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

[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

[SŪ. 3. 3. 21.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 613
Here the doubt is as to whether the stated names are each to be
meditated on singly in its own place (i e. where mentioned), or whether
each is to be meditated on in both the places as combined with the
other Just as in the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā there is a mutual combination
of attributes on account of their connection with an identical vidyā,
“so elsewhere too”, i e in the case of the orb of the sun and the eye,
the two names are to be mutually combined in both the places “on
account of their connection” with an identical vidyā,—this is the
meaning of the prima facie aphorism.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 21 in his commentary He begins a new adhikaraṇa
here (five sūtras), concerned with the worship of the aveśāvatāras or
God-possessed souls like Nārada and so on. The question is whether
they too are to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes of the
Lord Himself. This is the prima facie view: “On account of (their
intimate) connection (with the Lord Himself), in others also (i.e. the
God-possessed souls), (are to be meditated on) thus, (i.e. as possessed
of the attributes of the Lord ”.¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 21-22)
SŪTRA 21
“OR NOT, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
But the correct conclusion is that “on account of the difference”
of place, (such) a combination is “not” appropriate.
Vedānta-kaustubha
(The author) refutes (the above view).
The names are “not” to be combined. Why? “On account
of difference,” i.e on account of the difference of place. Just as the
attribute, stated of a teacher when seated, does not belong to him
¹ G B. 3.3.21, p. 147, Chap. 3.

614 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 3. 22.
ADH. 7.]
when walking, so exactly on account of the difference of the forms of
Brahman,—who is one indeed,—in consequence of His connection
with those respective places, (viz. the orb of the sun and the eye),
there is difference of vidyās, and as such no combination. Thus, in
one case, truth is to be meditated on as connected with the locality
of the sun, and here the name: "His secret name is 'Day'—this is in
reference to the presiding deities" (Bṛh. 5.5.3) is appropriate. The
insertion of such a name to the locality of the eye is not possible. In
the other case, on the other hand, it is to be meditated on as connected
with the locality of the eye, and here the name: ' His secret name is
'I'—this is in reference to the self" (Bṛh 5.5.4) is appropriate.
There can be no insertion of it to the locality of the sun In the
Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, on the contrary, there is no difference of place, since
the object to be meditated on is, in both the cases, situated within
the heart.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 22 in his commentary. It answers the prima facie
view. He reads "aviśeṣāt" instead of "viśeṣāt". Hence the sūtra:
"Or not, (i.e. the God-possessed souls are not to be worshipped as
possessed of all God-like attributes,) on account of (their) non-difference
(from other souls)". That is, the God-possessed souls too are after
all jīvas and hence they are to be highly venerated, but not worshipped
like the Lord Himself ¹
SŪTRA 22
"AND (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The scriptural text, viz. "The form of this one is the very same
as the form of that one" (Chānd. 1 7.5 ²), "shows" the absence of
a combination of the attributes of that which is situated within the
sun and that which is situated within the eye.
¹ G.B. 3.3 22, p. 147, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh.

[Sū. 3. 3. 22.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 615
Vedānta-kaustubha
In another place, a scriptural text concerned with transference
“shows” the absence of a combination of the attributes of that which
is situated in the sun and that which is situated in the eye. Thus,
the scriptural text concerned with transference, viz. “The form of this
one is the very same as the form of that one” (Chānd 1.7.5) transfers
the form of the Person abiding in the sun to the Person abiding in the
eye. And this (text) clearly indicates the absence of a combination
of attributes in such a case. If there were any combination of attri-
butes, then the transference would have been meaningless ¹ Hence
it is established that there is no combination of the names
Here ends the section entitled “The connection” (7).
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
He takes this sūtra as constituting a new adhikaraṇa by itself,
concerned with the Maṇḍala-vidyā, or the meditation on the Person
within the orb of the sun, in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 1 6.6) and the
Mahā-nārāyaṇa (Mahā. 12.2) Upaniṣads, and concludes that the two
vidyās are identical, since Scripture “shows” their identity ²
Baladeva
This is sūtra 23 in his commentary. He gives here a second
reason why the God-possessed souls are not to be meditated on as
possessed of the attributes of the Lord Himself: “And (Scripture,
viz. Chānd. 7.1.1) shows”. That is, the above text shows that
¹ I.e. a special transference, identifying two things, is necessary only when
the two things are naturally different. E.g. a king is not, as a rule, expressly
mentioned to be rich, for it is understood that all kings are naturally rich. Hence
we simply say: ‘He is a king’. But we say, ‘He is a servant and rich’, for the
quality of being rich does not, as a rule, belong to servants and any exception
has to be expressly mentioned Similarly, since here the form of the person
within the sun and the form of the person within the eye are expressly mentioned
to be identical, it is clear that there is no natural identity between them, so
that no combinations of their attributes, names and so on are possible.
² ŚK. B. 3.3.22, pp. 319-320, Part 9.

616 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 23.
ADH. 8.]
Nārada, a God-possessed soul, approached Sanatkumāra with a view
to learning about the Supreme Soul from him. This proves that
the God-possessed souls are not perfect like the Lord. Hence they
cannot be worshipped as possessed of His attributes.¹
Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled “Holding
together”. (Sūtra 23)
SŪTRA 23
“(THE ATTRIBUTES LIKE) HOLDING TOGETHER AND PERVADING
THE HEAVEN TOO (ARE NOT TO BE INSERTED IN ALL VIDYĀS)
AND FOR THIS REASON.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Owing to the very same difference of places,² there is no insertion,
in other vidyās, of the attributes like “holding together, pervading
the heaven” and so on, laid down in the manual of the Taittirīyas ³
thus: “The powers of which Brahman is the oldest, were held
together. Brahman stretched out the heaven, the oldest, in the
beginning” (Tait. Br. 2.4.7, 10 ⁴).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now (the author) is extending the above-mentioned maxim to
other cases.
In the manual of the Taittirīyas, i e. in the supplementary writings
of the Rāṇāyanīyas, a mass of attributes belonging to Brahman, such
as, holding the powers together, pervading the heaven and so on, is
recorded in the passage: “The powers of which Brahman is the oldest,
were held together. Brahman stretched out the heaven, the oldest,
in the beginning. Brahman was born first among all beings.⁵ Who
then is fit to rival that Brahman?” (Tait. Br. 2.4.7, 10). The sense
is: ‘energies’—here the word ‘vīryyāḥ’ (in the masculine gender)
means ‘vīryyāṇi’ (in the neuter gender)—have Brahman as their
¹ G.B 3.3.23, p. 148, Chap. 3.
² Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.21. ³ A school of the Yajur-veda
⁴ Pp. 252-253. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. Cf. Athar. V. 19.22.21, 30—same, only
“Brahma-jyeṣṭhā sambhṛtā vīryyāṇi”,—slightly different.
⁵ The text reads: “Ṛtasya Brahma prathamota jajñe”.

[sū. 3. 3. 23.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 617
‘oldest’, i.e. as their chief,—that means: they are the attributes of
Brahman. (They are) ‘held together’, i.e supported, by the sub-
stratum of the attributes, (viz. Brahman),—hereby (Brahman's attri-
bute of) holding the powers together is designated. That chiefest
Brahman stretched out the heaven,—hereby (Brahman's attribute of)
pervading the heaven is designated.
Here the doubt is as to whether these attributes of Brahman
are to be inserted in the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest,—that are
meditations on Brahman—enjoined in their (i.e. Rānāyanīyas's)
Upaniṣads, or not to be inserted, a different kind of meditation (on
Brahman) as possessed of these attributes being enjoined here. On
the suggestion that they are to be inserted,
We reply. Just as the two names are not combined, so the group
of attributes like “holding together and pervading the heaven”
and so on too is not to be combined. Why? “For this reason,”
i.e. on account of the very same difference, i e. on account of the
difference of abodes In the Śāṇḍilya-vidyās and the rest, Brahman
is declared to have a small abode in the texts: “This soul of mine
within the heart” (Chānd. 3.14.3, 4). Here, there (is no mention of the)
attribute of occupying a place that is not small, resulting from (His)
‘pervading the heaven’, as well as of other attributes of occupying
a place that is not small, such as, ‘holding together’ and the rest,
resulting from (their) association with that Hence it is established
that there is a separate meditation (on Brahman) as qualified by the
attributes of holding the powers together, pervading the heaven and
so on.
Here ends the section entitled “Holding together” (8).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 24 in his commentary. He continues the topic that
the God-possessed souls are not to be meditated on as possessed of
the attributes of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: “And (the attributes
like) holding together and pervading the heaven too (are not to be
combined in the meditations on the God-possessed souls) also for this
reason (i.e. because they are not equal to the Lord) ”.¹
¹ G.B. 3.3.24, pp. 148-149, Chap. 3.

618 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 24.
ADH. 9.]
Adhikaraṇa 9 The section entitled "The me-
ditation on the Person". (Sūtra 24)
SŪTRA 24
“AND EVEN IN THE MEDITATION ON THE PERSON (THERE IS NO
TRANSFERENCE OF ATTRIBUTES), ON ACCOUNT OF OTHERS BEING
NOT RECORDED”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
As “even in the meditation on the person”,—recorded in the
Chāndogya thus: “The person, verily, is a sacrifice” (Chānd. 3 16.1 ¹)
and in the manual of the Taittirīyas thus: “For him who knows thus”
(Tait. Ār. 10 64; ² Mahānār. 25.1),—the details mentioned in one
place, viz. “His twenty-four years are the morning libation” (Chānd.
3.16.1), are not recorded in another, so the vidyās are different.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Previously, in accordance with the reason (stated in Br. Su.
3. 3 21): ‘On account of difference’, the meditation on (Brahman) as
endowed with the attributes like holding together and so on was
demonstrated to be different from the meditations on Brahman as
taught by Śāṇḍilya and others. Now, by showing the difference of the
meditations on the person, (the author) is removing the doubt that in
the case of meditations on the person, the meditations are identical
on account of the non-difference of names and the rest.
The meditation on the person is recorded in the Chāndogya in
the Rahasya-brāhmaṇa of the Tāṇḍins and the Paiṅgins thus: “The
person, verily, is a sacrifice. His twenty-four years are the morning
libation” (Chānd. 3 16.1), “Now the forty-four years are the mid-day
libation” (Chānd. 3.16.3), “Now the forty-eight years are the third
libation” (Chānd. 3.16.5) and so on. In the manuals of the Taitti-
rīyas too, there is a meditation on the person in the first section:
“For him who knows thus, the soul of the sacrifice is the sacrificer,
faith his wife, his body the fuel, his breast the sacrificial altar, his
body-hairs the sacrificial grass” (Tait. Ār. 10.64; Mahānār. 25.1).
Here the doubt is as to whether the meditations recorded in the two
places are different or identical. If it be suggested that on account
¹ R, ŚK. ² P. 779. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 24.
ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 619
of the non-difference of names and the rest, the meditations are the
same,—(the author) states the correct conclusion: “Even in the
meditation on the person”. The meditations on the person are
different Why ? Because “even in the meditation on the person” of
the Chāndogya and the Taittirīya-manual, recorded without distinction,
the attributes which are mutually different are “not recorded”, i.e.
not mentioned, in the other place. Thus, in the Chāndogya, the life
of a person, up to his hundred and sixteen years, divided thrice, is
imagined to be a libation. In the Taittirīya-manual, on the other hand,
in the text. “The evening, the morning and the mid-day are the
libations” (Tait. Ār. 10 64; Mahānār. 25.1), three libations are imagined,
but in the Chāndogya three libations are not imagined.¹ Moreover, in
the Chāndogya, the desire to eat and the rest are imagined to be the
purificatory ceremony and so on,² but not in the Taittirīya-manuals.
In the Chāndogya, a person is imagined to be a sacrifice thus: “The
person, verily, is a sacrifice” (Chānd 3.16.1), but his soul and the rest
are not imagined to be the sacrificer and so on In the Taittirīya-
manual, on the other hand, the soul of the person is imagined to be a
sacrifice and so on thus: “For him who knows thus, the soul of the
sacrifice is the sacrificer” (Ait. Ār. 10 64; Mahānār. 25.1 ³). Hence
there is a difference of form in the two cases, since everywhere the
difference of special points is the cause of the difference of meditation.
There is a difference of connection with fruit as well. In the Chāndogya,
to begin with, the fruit of the meditation on the person is the attain-
ment of longevity.⁴ In the Taittirīya-manuals, on the other hand, the
attainment of Brahman is the fruit of the meditation on the person.
Thus, having set forth the meditation on Brahman in the previous
section thus: “Let him unite himself with you, the great Brahman,
¹ In the Chāndogya, the parts of the one and the same thing are fancifully
represented as three libations; while in the Taittirīya-manuals three different
things are so represented.
² Vide Chānd. 3.16.1–5. “When he desires to eat and drink and does not
enjoy himself—that is his purificatory ceremony,” etc. '
³ The Chāndogya stops at identifying a person with a sacrifice, but does
not enter into any details. The Taittirīya-manuals differ from the Chāndogya
not only in not identifying a person with a sacrifice, but also in entering into
greater details.
⁴ Vide Chānd. 3.16.7. “He who knows this lives for hundred and sixteen
years.”
10

[SŪ. 3. 3. 24.
620 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 9.]
Om” (Tait. Ār. 10.63; ¹ Mahānār. 24.2), and having stated the fruit
belonging to a knower of Brahman, viz. the attainment of Brahman
thus: “He attains the greatness of Brahman” (Tait. Ār. 10 63, ²
Mahānār. 24 2), the text goes on to say: “For him who knows thus,
the soul of the sacrifice” (Tait. Ār. 10.64; Mahānār. 25 2) and so on.
As there is a reference to the knower of Brahman by the term ‘him’
here, and as it (viz. the meditation on the person) is mentioned in the
immediate vicinity (of the meditation on Brahman), so it is gathered
that the meditation on the person here is a subsidiary part of the
meditation on Brahman, and that (as such) the former has no reference
to a different fruit. This boing so, it is deduced that the attainment
of Brahman alone is the fruit of the meditation on the person which
is a subsidiary part of the meditation on Brahman. Hence it is
established that as the identity of mere names, viz. ‘meditation
on the person’ (puruṣa-vidyā), in the two cases, is of no great im-
portance, the vidyās are different; that being so, there is no combina-
tion of their special features.
Here ends the section entitled “The meditation on the
person” (9).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
He reads “Puruṣa-vidyāyām iva”, instead of “Puruṣa-vidyāyām
api”, and explains the sūtra thus: “As (the record of the Tāndins
and Paiṅgins is) in the puruṣa-vidyā, (not such is the record) of
others”. ³ Conclusion reached, the same.
Baladeva
This is sūtra 25 in his commentary. Like Śaṁkara he reads:
“iva” in place of “api”. He concludes here the topic of the worship
of the God-possessed souls, viz. that they, being not equal to the
Lord, are not to be meditated on as possessed of His attributes.
Hence the sūtra: (“As attributes like creatorship, rulership, and so
on, are declared to be belonging to the Lord) in the meditation on the
person (i.e. in the Puruṣa-sūktas of the Veda) and (in the Gopāla-
¹ Pp. 774-775. ² P. 775. ³ Ś.B. 3.3.24, p. 790.
10B