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

[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.

628 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 27.
ADH. 12.]
its own form" (Chānd 8.3.4; 8.12.3 ¹) and so on. This being so, the
decay of works which has actually taken place at the time of the soul's
separation from the body, is recorded to take place after it crosses
the river in the text: "He crosses that river Virajā. Then he discards
good and evil deeds" (Kauṣ. 1.4 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
An investigation into the abandoning of sins by a knower and
taking (by others) was undertaken above. Now we shall consider
the time when such an abandoning of merit and demerit takes
place.
The doubt is as to whether some portions of the merits and
demerits of a knower decay at the time of his separation from the final
body, while some portions of these decay on the way, when, having left
the body, he is moving towards the world of Brahman; or whether
such an abandonment takes place only at the time of his separation
from the body. Here the prima facie view is: Having begun thus:
"Having reached the path of gods, he comes to the world of fire"
(Kauṣ. 1.3), the Kauṣītakins record: "He comes to the river Virajā,
crosses it with the mind, then he discards good and evil deeds" (Kauṣ.
1.4). As here such an abandonment appears to take place immediately
after he crosses the river, and as in the Upaniṣads of the Tāṇḍins
too, viz. in the text: "Having shaken off the evils, as a horse his hair"
(Chānd 8.13.1), such an abandonment appears to take place at the
time of his separation from the final body, it follows that he abandons
some of his good and evil deeds at the time of his separation from
the final body, and of some on the way, both these texts being
(equally) authoritative:
With regard to it, we say: "In passing away". "In passing
away," i.e. when the soul is going to the next world, viz. at the time
of its departure from the body alone, a knower discards his merits and
demerits. Why? "On account of there being nothing to be crossed;
or no good fruit to be attained through merits, and no evil fruit to be
attained through demerits subsequently to the soul's leaving the
body, there existing, subsequently to that, the fruit of vidyā alone,
consisting in the attainment of Brahman's nature.

¹ R.                                                                                             ² Ś, Bh, Śk.

{sū. 3. 3. 27.
ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 629
"Thus others," i.e. the followers of the other schools too record
that subsequently to the fall of the body, there is no fruit of work
to be undergone by a knower, except the attainment of the nature
of Brahman, thus: "Verily, when one is bodiless, pleasure and pain
do not touch him" (Chānd. 8.12.1), "This serene being, having arisen
from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed
in his own form" (Chānd. 8 3.4; 8.12.3). The decay of karmas,
which has actually taken place at the time of the soul's departure
from the body, is recorded in the text of the Kauṣītakins to take
place immediately after it crosses the river Virajā, thus: "He crosses
the river Virajā with the mind; then he discards good and evil deeds"
(Kauṣ. 1 4),—this is to be understood here Hence it is that the
Tāṇḍins and the rest record that the abandonment takes place actually
at the time of the soul's separation from the body, thus: "Shaking off
the evils like a horse", etc.
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
Literal interpretation same, but he takes this (and the following
two sūtras) as representing the prima facie view.
Baladeva
This is sūtra 28 in his commentary. He concludes the topic,
viz. whether the worship of the Lord is obligatory on the part of the
freed or not. He interprets the word, "sāmparāya" as love of the
Lord 'Samparāya' means 'samparayanti tattvāni yasmin', i.e
one in whom all the truths meet, viz. the Lord, and love of the Sam-
parāya is 'sāmparāya'. Hence the sūtra: "When the love of the
Lord (has arisen), (i.e. when the soul has become free), (it is no longer
obligatory for it to practise meditation), on account of there being
nothing to be crossed (i.e. there is no bondage any more), for thus
others declare".¹
¹ G.B. 3.3.28, pp. 155–158, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 28.
630 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 12.]
SŪTRA 28
"ACCORDING TO INTENTION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-CONTRA-
DICTION OF BOTH."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The friend and the enemy of a knower get respectively his merits
and demerits "according to intention",—thus both become freo from
contradiction.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The good and bad deeds, performed by a knower, go to others
"accordmg to intention", i.e. according to resolution, "on account
of the non-contradiction of both". A causeless discarding, by
parts, of his own deeds to others is inconsistent on the part of a
knower who is impartial; and a causcless appropriating of the good
and bad deeds, performed by others, too, is inconsistent on the part
of any one. One who acting in a friendly manner, wishes the knower
good, obtains the merits of the knower for that very reason But one,
who acting in an unfriendly manner, wishes the knower ill, obtains
the demerits of the knower for that very reason. Thus, if the good
and evil deeds go (to the friend and the enemy) in accordance with
their intontions, the discarding and tho appropriating come to be
free from contradiction. So Smṛti declares: "The sin of one who
is being cursed goos to one who is cursing". It has beon said by the
reverend Manu as well: "Having left his good deeds to his dear
relatives, and his bad deeds to those not dear, he goes to Brahman,
the eternal, through the path of meditation" (Manu. 6 7.9¹).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation different: "(The soul may attain knowledge)
according to (its) likmg (only so long as it has a body); (our view is
preferable) on account of the non-contradiction of both". That is,
a disembodied soul cannot evidently undergo the requisites and so
on for attaining knowledge, but an embodied being alone can do so
according to its own liking. Hence, if the works of a knower still
persist after the fall of his body, it will not be possible for him
¹ P. 225.

[sū 3. 3. 28.
ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 631
to get rid of them ever, seeing that it will not be possible for him, a
disembodied soul, to acquire any further knowledge. Further, if
knowledge be the cause of the destruction of works, as soon as
the knower attains knowledge, all his works must decay at once.
Scripture also declares so. Hence our view is preferable, since it
avoids a two-fold contradiction—viz. makes knowledge the direct
cause of the destruction of works and does not contradict Scripture.¹
Rāmānuja
Interpretation different. He here explains the Kauṣītaki-text
(Kaus. 1.4) which seems to go against the view that the soul leaves
all its works at the time of leaving the body. Hence the sūtra: "(The
different parts of the text are to be arranged) at will, on account of the
non-contradiction of both (viz. reason and Scripture)". That is,
as it has been established on the ground of reason as well as Scripture
that the soul leaves all its works at the time of its departure from the
body, in order that these two—reason and Scripture—be not contra-
dicted, the parts of the Kauṣītaki-text are to be re-arranged to suit
the above conclusion, i.e. the part: 'He then discards good and evil
deeds' is to be put before the part: 'Having attained the path of gods,
he comes to the world of fire'.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
Literal interpretation same, but the fundamental difference is
that he takes it to be laying down the prima facie view.
Baladeva
This is sūtra 29 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa
here (two sūtras), concerned with showing the two ways of meditating
on the Lord. Hence the sūtra: "(Either of the two modes of medi-
tation, viz. on God, the sweet or on God, the Majestic, leads to salva-
tion) through the will (of the Lord), since there is no conflict between
the two, (i.e. there are texts to both effects and the devotee may
choose either of them)".³ The word "no" is to be supplied from sūtra
3.3.22.
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.28, p. 806. ² Śrī. B. 3.3.28, p. 298, Part 2.
³ G.B. 3.3.29, pp. 158-159, Chap. 3.

632 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 29.
ADH. 12 ]
SŪTRA 29
"THERE IS MEANING OF THE GOING (OF THE SOUL) IN A TWO-FOLD
WAY (I.E. ONLY IF IT DISCARDS BOTH DEMERIT AND MERIT), FOR
OTHERWISE THERE IS CONTRADICTION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"There is meaning of the going" through the cessation, without
distinction, of good and evil deeds. If the good deeds follow (the soul),
then immediately after the enjoyment of their fruits, there must
follow recurrence of births
Vedānta-kaustubha
Apprehending the objection . It is not appropriate to hold that
at the time of the soul's separation from the body, it discards its good
deeds (as well), as that may lead to undesirable results,—(the author)
says.
"In a two-fold way," i.e. through the cessation of both good
and evil deeds at the time of the soul's separation from the body,
"there is meaning of the going", i.e. the soul comes to attain its end
immediately after the fall of the body Otherwise, if it be admitted
that bad deeds alone are discarded, and that good deeds—which
are non-distinct (from the bad deeds in this respect)—are exhausted
through the enjoyment of their fruits, the scriptural text: "His
friends attain his good deeds" will be contradicted, as well as the
going,—this is the sense. Further, there being recurrence of births
at the completion of enjoyment, the scriptural text laying down (the
soul's) non-return will also come to be contradicted, viz. the text:
"Those proceeding by this path return not to human existence"
(Chānd. 4.15.6). It cannot be said that he (i.e. the knower) does not
go by it, since there is no mention in Scripture of the soul's going
through a different path. If it be said that the fruit of vidyā would
be permanent,—(we reply:) there will be uncertainty of the fruit ¹
¹ I.e. if it be urged that although the fruits of the good deeds of the knower,
accompanying him, may entitle him to return, yet the fruit of his vidyā, which
also accompanies him and which is permanent, entitles him to non-return—we
point out that in that case, what exactly is going to be the fate of the knower,
return or non-return, remains uncertain and ambiguous.

[sū. 3 3, 29.
ADH. 12 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 633
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation entirely different. He begins a new adhikaraṇa.
In some texts, the soul is said to go through the path of gods after
having discarded merits and demerits; but in some texts, it is simply
said to discard its merits and demerits. Hence the problem is whether
the soul has to travel always through the path of gods for attaining
Brahman. The answer is that there is no such necessity. The
journey through the path of gods is not necessary for one who has
attained identity with Brahman here and now. Hence the sūtra :
"There is meaning of the going in two ways, (i.e. it is necessary in
certain cases, not necessary in others), otherwise there is contradiction
(of texts)".¹
Rāmānuja
He takes this sūtra as laying down the prima facie view, thus:
"There is meaning of the (soul's) going in two ways, (i.e. only on the
hypothesis that it discards a part of its merit and so on at the time of
leaving the body and the rest on its way), for otherwise there is con-
tradiction". That is, if he is to discard all its merits and demerits
at the time of its departure from the body, its subtle body too
must be destroyed simultaneously. In that case, no going through
the path of the gods will be possible on its part, a mere disembodied
soul ²
Nimbārka raises the problem and solves it in the next sūtra, as
we shall see.
Śrīkaṇṭha
He inverts the order of this and the next sūtra. Thus:—
Nimbārka and others Śrīkaṇṭha
"Gaterartha-vattvam . . . ." "Upapannas tal-lakṣaṇārtho
(sūtra 29). . . . .” (sūtra 29).
"Upapannas tallakṣaṇārtho "Gater artha-vattvam . . . .”
. . . .” (sūtra 30). (sūtra 30).
Interpretation too different, viz. :
Sūtra 29.—"Upapannas tal-lakṣaṇārtho . . . . ”: Here he con-
cludes the prima facie view, viz. that the soul discards all its
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.29, pp. 803-804.
² Śrī. B. 3.3.29, p. 299, Part 2, Madras ed.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 29.
634 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 12.]
merits and demerits at the time of leaving the body. He interprets
it exactly after Nimbārka ¹ (sūtra 30 in Nimbārka's commentary),
the fundamental difference being that while Nimbārka takes it to
be stating the correct conclusion, Śrīkaṇṭha takes it to be stating the
prima facie view only.
Sūtra 30.—"Gater artha-vattvam . . . ." He takes it to be
stating the correct conclusion against the prima facie view stated
above in three sūtras, thus: "There is meaning of the going in two
ways, (i.e. only on the hypothesis that the soul discards a part of its
merits and so on, i.e. karmas, at the time of its departure from the
body, and the rest after crossing the river Virajā), for otherwise
there is contradiction". That is, if all the karmas of the soul are
destroyed completely at the time of its departure from the body,
it will become freed immediately and it would not be necessary for
it to travel through the path of gods, attain Brahman, and then be
freed. Hence the texts which designate the soul's travelling through
the path of gods to attain Brahman and release will come to be con-
tradicted. Further, if the soul becomes freed as soon as it leaves
the body, the texts which designate that the soul attains its real
form only on approaching Brahman too will come to be contradicted.
In order to avoid the contradiction of these two kinds of texts, it must
be held that all the karmas of the soul do not decay completely as soon
as it leaves the body. The fact is that though the vidyā of the soul
leads it to travel through the path of gods, yet as actual release is
not obtained until one directly approaches Brahman, some remainders
of karmas still cling to the soul until it crosses the sphere of matter
and actually attains the Lord.²
Baladeva
This is sūtra 30 in his commentary. Here he concludes the
section about the two paths of meditation. Hence the sūtra: "There
is meaning of the path in two ways, (i.e. both the paths, viz. meditation
on God, the sweet, and meditation on God, the majestic, have the
power to lead to the Lord), for otherwise there is contradiction (i.e.
¹ ŚK. B. 3.3.29, pp. 332-333, Parts 10 and 11.
² ŚK. B. 3.3.30, pp. 333-334, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 30.
ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 635
the texts which designate both of them to be leading to the Lord will be
contradicted) " 1 .
SŪTRA 30
"(THE GOING OF THE SOUL IS) APPROPRIATE, ON ACCOUNT OF
FINDING THINGS WHICH ARE MARKS OF THAT, (VIZ. CONNECTION
WITH THE BODY), AS IN ORDINARY LIFE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In spite of the decay of all the karmas of a worshipper of Brahman
at the time of his separation from the body, the path (i e. his going
through the path of gods) is "appropriate". Why? "On account
of finding things which are marks" of connection with the body and
the rest, in the passages: "Having attained the form of supreme light,
he is completed in his own form" (Chānd. 8.3.4 ²), "He roams about
there, laughing, playing and enjoying" (Chānd. 7.25 1 ³) and so on,—
just as a royal servant attains mundane ends. The sense is that in
spite of the decay of all works and of the gross body, he continues
to retain the subtle body, through the power of vidyā, in order that
he may go to a distinguished place. Immediately after his separation
from that, the knower, having attained the form mentioned in Scrip-
ture, comes to attain the nature of Brahman.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. if it be admitted that there is the decay
of all works at the time of the soul's leaving the body, there must
be the destruction of the subtle body too at the same time. This
being so, the path defined as the path of gods is "inappropriate",—
(the author) says:
In spite of the decay of all the works of a knower at the time of
his leaving the body, the path of gods is "appropriate". Why?
"On account of finding things which are marks of that," i.e. on
account of finding things that indicate that even a knower whose good
and evil deeds have decayed and whose real form has become
manifest has connection with body and the rest. The things
¹ G.B. 3.3.30, p. 160, Chap. 3.
² R, ŚK. ³ R.
II

[SŪ. 3. 3. 30.
636 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 12 ]
which are marks of his connection with the body and so on, not
brought about by karmas, is found in the following scriptural texts.
"Stainless, he attained the highest equality" (Muṇḍ 3.1 3), "Having
attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his own form"
(Chānd. 8.3.4; 8.12.3), "He roams about there, laughing, playing,
enjoying" (Chānd. 8.12.3), "He becomes a self-ruler, he comes to
wander at will in all the worlds" (Chānd 7.25.1), "He becomes one-
fold, he becomes three-fold" (Chānd 7 26.2) and so on. That is,
just as in ordinary life, a royal servant attains his ends through the
grace of the king, though he himself is unable to accomplish them
through his own efforts, so through the grace of the Highest Person,
the knower obtains a supremely wonderful body and so on, not brought
about by karmas. The intention is this: when through the influences
of vidyā, the knower, whose karmas have decayed, comes to attain
a wonderful body and the rest,—not brought about by karmas,—
why should not vidyā, for the sake of bestowing its own fruit,
viz. the attainment of Brahman, cause the subtle body to persist
through its own power in order to enable him to go through the path
of gods, even on the complete decay of all karmas and of the gross
body which is the means of enjoying pleasures and pain? The
sense is this. The subtle body continues up to the soul's reaching
the river Virajā, and immediately after that merges in the cause (viz
Brahman). This (the author) will state under the aphorism: "Those
in the Highest, for so (Scripture) says" (Br. Sū. 4.2.14). Hence it is
established that there is the decay of all karmas at the time of the
soul's separation from the final body.
Here ends the section entitled 'The passing away' (12).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation absolutely different,—viz. "(The view that the
going through the path of gods holds good in some cases only and not
universally is) appropriate, on account of finding a purpose charac-
terized thereby (i.e. a purpose for going)". That is, only those who
meditate on the qualified Brahman go through the path of gods to
attain Brahman, for in their case only, such a going has any meaning
11B