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

[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

[sū. 3. 3. 25.
ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 621
pūrva-tāpanī), (so they are) not declared (to be belonging) to others
(viz. the God-possessed souls)".¹
Adhikaraṇa 10: The section entitled "Piercing
and so on". (Sūtra 25)
SŪTRA 25
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF THE MATTER OF PIERCING
AND SO ON."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In meditation there is no insertion of the sacred formulæ like:
"Pierce all, pierce the heart" ², as well as of the sacrificial acts like
Pravargya ³ and the rest, mentioned in the passage. "The gods,
forsooth, held a sacrificial session" (Śat. Br. 14.1.1, 1 ⁴) and so on.
Why? "On account of the difference of the matter of piercing and
so on" from meditation.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, the following question is being considered: Just as the
meditation on the person is a subsidiary part of the meditation on
Brahman, it being mentioned in close proximity,—so are the sacred
formulæ and the sacrificial acts, to be stated below, to be inserted in
the meditation on Brahman as its subsidiary parts, they, too, being
mentioned in close proximity, or not?
In the beginning of their Upaniṣads, the followers of the Atharva-
veda record sacred formulæ like: "Pierce all, pierce the heart, cleave
the veins, cleave the head, divide into three parts" and so on. That
is, O Deity! 'pierce', i.e. tear off, 'all' the limbs of my enemy. Thus,
(1) 'pierce his heart', (2) 'cleave his veins', (3) 'cleave his head'. In
this way, may my enemy be 'divided', i.e. disjoined, 'into three parts'.
¹ G.B. 3.3.25, pp. 149-150, Chap. 3.
² Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
³ Pravargya is a ceremony introductory to the Soma-sacrifice.
⁴ Ś, R, p. 1021, line 1.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 25.
622 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 10.]
In the beginning of the Rahasya-brāhmaṇa, the Tāṇḍins also,
the singers of the Sāma, read the sacred formulæ: "O God Savitṛ!
produce the sacrifice, produce" (C.M.B. 1.1.1 ¹).
The Śāṭyāyanin's record: "Thou art a white horse, tawny and
black".
The Kaṭhas and the Taittirīyakas record: "May Mitra give us
weal, may Varuṇa" (Tait. 1.1) and so on.
The Aitareyins too record a Mahā-vrata-brāhmaṇa: "Verily,
Indra became great by killing Vṛtra".
The Kauṣītakins too record a Mahā-vrata-brāhmaṇa thus:
"Verily, Prajāpati is the whole year, his self is the Mahāvrata".
The Vājasaneyins, on the other hand, record a Pravargyya-
brāhmaṇa in the beginning of their Upaniṣad thus: "Verily, the gods
held a sacrificial session" (Śat. Br. 14.1 1, 1).
Here the doubt is, viz. whether the sacred formulæ and the
sacrificial acts like Pravargya and the rest, mentioned in certain
Vidyās, are to be comprised under those vidyās as their subsidiary
parts, or not. The suggestion being: The inclusion of the sacred
formulæ as well as of the sacrificial works as the subsidiary parts of
meditation is proper, they being mentioned in close proximity.
We reply: There is no inclusion. Why? "On account of the
difference of the matter of piercing and so on." That is, as the
matter of piercing and so on, subserving certain magical practices
that are different from meditation, is different from meditation, so the
matter of piercing and so on, mentioned by those particular texts, are
not fit to be applied to meditation. Thus, from the indication, viz.
the power of the sacred formulæ to exhibit their own sense,—which
is stronger than (mere) proximity ²—it is deduced that the sacred
formulæ are subsidiary parts of works like magical practices, study
and so on. From direct scriptural statement, which is stronger than
(mere) proximity,³—sacrificial works like Pravargya and the rest too
are deduced to have an application to Jyotiṣṭoma and the like. Hence
1 Vide V.C., p. 491. This passage occurs in many other places. This text
is found in many other treatises, vide e.g. Vj. Saṁ. 9.1; 11.7; 30.1; Tait. Saṁ.
1.7.7, 1; 4.1.1, 2, etc.
2 Vide Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.14.
3 Op. cit.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 26.
ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 623
it is established that there is no inclusion of these in those (vidyās)
as the subsidiary parts of meditation.
Here ends the section entitled “Piercing and so on” (10).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 26 in his commentary. He too takes it as forming
an adhikaraṇa by itself, though concerned with an entirely different
problem, viz. whether like the sweet and majestic attributes of the
Lord such as bliss, omnipotence, mentioned above, His destructive
and fearful attributes too such as piercing and so on, are to be medi-
tated on, or not. The answer is given here. He supplies the word
“na” here from sūtra 3.3.22 (21 in Nimbārka’s commentary). Hence
the sūtra: “(One who is desirous of release should not meditate on the
Lord as possessed of the attributes of piercing and so on, on account
of the difference of result (of such a meditation, i.e. because such a
meditation does not lead to release as the meditation on the Lord as
Sweet and Majestic does)”.¹
Adhikaraṇa 11: The section entitled “Aban-
donment”. (Sūtra 26)
SŪTRA 26
“BUT IN THE ABANDONMENT (OF MERIT AND DEMERIT, THE TAKING
OF THEM BY OTHERS IS TO BE SUPPLIED) ON ACCOUNT OF THE
WORD ‘TAKING’ BEING SUPPLEMENTARY (TO THE WORD ‘ABANDON-
ING’), AS IN THE CASE OF KUŚA, METRE, PRAISE, AND ACCOMPANYING
SONG, IT HAS BEEN SAID (IN PŪRVA-MĪMĀṂSĀ).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“In the abandonment,” consisting in getting rid of merits
and demerits, stated in the scriptural passage: “Then the knower,
having discarded merits and demerits” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.3²), the taking,

¹ G.B. 3.3.26, p. 151, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 26.
624 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.]
consisting in taking the merits and demerits, discarded by the
knower, stated in the passage: “His sons obtain the inheritance, his
friends the good deeds, his enemies the bad deeds”,¹ is included.
Why? Because the word ‘taking’, mentioned in another branch,
is supplementary to the word ‘abandoning’, just as the text:
“The progeny of the udumbara tree” ² is supplementary to the
text: “The kuśas are progeny of tree”, just as the text: “The metres
of the gods are the prior” is supplementary to the text: “Let one
praise by the metres”; just as the text: “The sun is half-risen” (Śat.
Ś.S. 9.7.19 ³) is supplementary to the text · “He assists the chanting
of the ṣoḍaśin ⁴ with gold ⁵”, and just as the text: “The Adhvaryyu ⁶
does not ⁷ join the singing” (Tait. Saṁ. 6.3.1 ⁸) is supplementary
to the text. “The sacrificial priests join the singing”.⁹ Moreover,
it is said by Jaimini as well: “Let it be supplementary to the text, on
account of the impropriety of an option” (Pū. Mī. Sū. 10.8.15 ¹⁰).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the author points out that the inclusion of a particular matter
in a particular place, with which it is connected, stands to reason.
In the Upaniṣad of the Tāṇḍins, it is declared: “Shaking off evil,
as a horse his hairs, shaking off the body as the moon frees itself from
the mouth of Rāhu, I, with the self obtained, pass into the uncreated
world of Brahman” (Chānd. 8.13.1). Similarly, it is declared by the
text of the followers of the Atharva-veda. “His sons obtain the
inheritance, his friends the good deeds, his enemies the bad deeds”.
The Śāṭyāyanins read: “Then he discards good and evil deeds. His
dear relatives obtain the good deeds, those not dear the evil deeds”
(Kauṣ. 1.4).

¹ Op. cit. ² Op. cit.
³ P. 961. The text reads · “Samayābiṣite sūryye hiraṇyena vahirbhyām
ca”, etc.
⁴ A hymn or a formula consisting of sixteen parts.
⁵ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
⁶ One of the four classes of priests. His special duty was to measure the
ground, build the altar, prepair sacrificial vessels, etc., and he had to recite the
hymns of the Yajur-veda while doing these duties.
⁷ Correct reading. Na upagāyet=should not sing.
⁸ P. 175, line 9, vol. 2. R, Bh, Śk. ⁹ R, Bh, Śk.
¹⁰ P. 631, vol. 2. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[sū. 3. 3. 26.
ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 625
Now, in the Upaniṣad of the Tāṇḍins, as well as in the text of the
followers of the Atharva-veda, the abandonment of merit and demerit
is declared. In the text of the Śāṭyāyanins, the obtainment of merit
and demerit by the dear and the not dear is declared. In the text
of the Kauṣītakins, on the other hand, both are declared. This being
the case, there is no room for any doubt in the case where both
abandoning and taking are mentioned. Where there is the direct
mention of taking only, there abandoning too is implied, since taking
is impossible without (prior) abandoning ¹ But where only abandoning
is mentioned, there the following (question) is to be considered: The
doubt is as to whether the taking of the abandoned merit and demerit,
which taking is mentioned elsewhere, is to be inserted in the Upaniṣad
of the Tāṇḍins and in the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda,
or not. On the suggestion, viz. It is not to be inserted owing to
the force of separate mention. Otherwise, the double implication
(viz. abandoning and taking)—which is the result of such an insertion
—being already established in the cases of the two texts of the
Tāṇḍins and the followers of the Atharva-veda through such an
insertion from the text of the Kauṣītakins, the mention of abandoning
in those two texts must become useless,²—
We reply: “But in the abandonment, on account of the word
‘taking’ being supplementary”. The word “but” disposes of the
(above) prima facie view. “In the abandonment,” i.e. in the text
which designates abandoning only, taking is to be inserted. Why?
“On account of the word ‘taking’ being supplementary,” i.e. on account
of the word ‘taking’ being supplementary to the word ‘abandoning’.
The sense is that in the Upaniṣad of the Kauṣītakins, the text desig-
nating the taking of the good and evil deeds is recorded as being
supplementary to the text designating the abandoning of the good
and evil deeds. Similarly here too, it is essential that the merits and
demerits, abandoned by a knower, should be obtained by others.
(The author) states a number of parallel instances, illustrating
¹ Hence these two cases present no difficulty.
² I.e. in the text of the Kauṣītakins both abandoning and taking are men-
tioned, while in the texts of the Tāṇḍins and the followers of the Atharva-veda
only abandoning is mentioned. Now if it be said that taking is inserted from
the first to the last two, then abandoning too may very well be so inserted.
In that case, the mention of abandoning in the last two texts becomes
meaningless.

626 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 26.
ADH. 11.]
the fact that a text, mentioned in one branch, may form the supple-
ment of a text, mentioned in another branch, thus: "As in the case of
the kuśa, metre, praise and accompanying song". Thus, just as it
being known in a general manner that the kuśas are the progeny of
tree from the text of the Kauṣītakins, viz. "You kuśas are the progeny
of the tree, do protect me", it is known from the specific text of the
Śāṭyāyanins: "The progeny of the udumbara tree", that the kuśas
are the progeny of the udumbara tree,—this being so, the text of the
Śāṭyāyanins becomes the supplement of the text of the Kauṣītakins,—
the construction of this (latter) text is as follows: O Kuśas! You are
the progeny of the tree, protect, i.e. save me, the sacrificer;—just as
no specific order of priority and posteriority of gods and demons being
mentioned in the text: "Let one praise by metres", a specific order is
known from the text of the Paiṅgins, viz. "The metres of the gods
are prior"; just as on an enquiry into the time of chanting, which is
a subsidiary part of the taking of a particular kind of pot, viz. ṣoḍaśin,
the time not being known specifically from the text: "He assists the
chanting of the ṣoḍaśin with gold", the text of the Taittirīyas, desig-
nating the time specifically thus: "When the sun is half risen, he assists
the chanting of the ṣoḍaśin" (Śat. Ś.S. 9.7.19) becomes the supplement
of that text; and just as the prohibitive text of one branch, viz.
"The Adhvaryyu does not join the singing" (Tait. Saṃ. 6.3.1)
becomes the supplement of the non-specific text of a different branch,
viz. "The sacrificial priests join the singing"—so in the matter under
discussion too, viz. abandoning, there is the insertion of taking.
(The author) shows that this view that general texts imply specific
texts is supported by another teacher as well, thus: "It has been
said", i.e. said by Jaimini, viz. "Let it be, on the contrary, supple-
mentary to the text, on account of the impropriety of an option.
Let the injunction refer to the same place" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 10.8.15).
The establishing of the double implication (viz. of abandoning
and taking) in places concerned, on the other hand, should be known
to be meant for the benefit of the respective readers of those
(treatises). Hence it is established that "in the abandonment",
taking is inserted.
Here ends the section entitled "Abandonment" (11).

[sū. 3. 3. 27.
ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 627
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 27 in his commentary He begins a new adhikarana
here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different question, viz
whether the meditation on the Lord is obligatory or optional to the
freed souls. He reads “Āchanda” instead of “chanda”, interpret-
ing it as ‘option’. Hence the sūtra: “But on the destruction (of
bondage, the released souls are under no obligation to practise medita-
tion, because they have obtained) nearness (i.e. upāyana) (to the Lord),
(and) because scriptural texts are supplementary (to this, i.e. are
meant for leading the soul to this stage, viz release), just as the singing
of hymns with the kuśa (in hand) is optional (i.e. āchanda) (for a
student who has finished his daily duties), it is declared (by Scripture)”.
That is, the aim of all scriptural texts is to teach men meditation so
that they may attain salvation When that end is reached, i.e. men
are freed and approach the Lord, it is no longer necessary for them
to go on with further meditation.¹
Adhikarana 12. The section entitled “The
passing away” (Sūtras 27-30)
SŪTRA 27
“In passing away (there is a complete abandonment of
merit and demerit), on account of there being nothing
to be crossed, for thus others (declare).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
At the time (of the soul’s) departure from the body, it com-
pletely abandons (its) merits and demerits. Why? Because after
(its) separation from the body, there is no more experience “to be
crossed” (i.e. undergone) through these two. This very thing others
declare thus: “Verily, when one is bodiless, pleasure and pain do not
touch him” (Chānd. 8.12.1 ²), “This serene being, having arisen from
this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in
¹ G.B. 3.3.27, pp. 153-154, Chap. 3.
² R.