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

[sū. 3. 3. 37.
ADH. 16.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 659
saying "I am he". What the above passages aim at enjoining is
the meditation on the unity of the soul. Hence just as other texts
record the attributes of being the soul of all and so on for the purpose
of meditation, so the above texts record a mutual transposition of
the ideas of 'I' and 'He' for the same purpose.¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 38 in his commentary.
Here he concludes the topic of the identity between the Lord
and His city. Hence the sūtra: "For (texts like Brh. 1.4.15) specify
(that an) interchange (is possible between the Lord and His city),
like other (texts, e.g. Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī, etc.)". That is, the City
of Brahman is identical with Brahman Himself, hence an exchange
is possible between them, and the former is equally adorable like the
latter.²
SŪTRA 37
"FOR HE ALONE (IS THE OBJECT OF MEDITATIONS IN ALL THE
VERSIONS), THE TRUE AND THE REST (ARE INSERTED IN ALL THE
VERSIONS)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"He alone" who is denoted by the term 'true', and is mentioned
in the texts: "That divinity thought" (Chānd. 6.3.2 ³), "Light
(merges) in the highest divinity" (Chānd. 6.8.6 ⁴), is repeated in the
versions, such as: '"Just as, my dear, the bees prepare the honey"'
(Chānd. 6.9.1 ⁵) and so on. The very same (attributes of being) "the
true and the rest", mentioned in the first version thus: '"Everything
has that for its self, that is true"' (Chānd 6.8.7 ⁶), are inserted in all
other versions.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. In the Sad-vidyā too, there being a repe-
tition of question and answer, how is it ascertained that the object
to be meditated on is the same?—(the author) says:
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.37, pp. 816-817; Bh. B. 3.3.36 (written as 3.3.37), p. 189.
² G.B. 3.3.38, p. 176, Chap. 3. "Paramātmaiva loko lokaḥ paramātmeti."
³ R, ŚK. ⁴ R.
⁵ R. ⁶ R, ŚK.

660 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 37.
ADH. 16.]
“For he alone,” i.e. the Highest Divinity alone, denoted by the
term ‘existent’ and referred to in the passages: “That divinity
thought” (Chānd 6 3.2), “Light (merges) in the Highest Divinity”
(Chānd. 6.8.6), is repeated in the versions: ‘“Just as, my dear, the
bees prepare the honey”’ (Chānd. 6 9.1) and so on. The very same
(attributes of being) “the true” and so on, mentioned in the first
version: ‘“All this has that for its soul, that is true”’ (Chānd. 6.8.7),
are inserted in all the other versions. Hence in the Sad-vidyā, the
object to be worshipped is the same indeed. Thus it is established
that in both the cases the questions and the answers are concerned
with the same vidyā.
Here ends the section entitled “Being within” (16).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 38 in Śaṃkara’s commentary. They take this
sūtra too as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the
question whether the two Sad-vidyās (in Bṛh. 5.4 and Bṛh. 5.5)
constitute the same vidyā or two different vidyās. The answer is
that they are the same vidyā. They read “sā” (meaning vidyā)
instead of “sa” (meaning the Lord). Hence the sūtra: “For that
(viz. the same Sad-vidyā) alone (is recorded by the two texts), (hence
the attributes of) truth and so on (are to be comprehended in one act
of meditation)”.¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself.
Interpretation same.
Baladeva
This is sūtra 39 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as
constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with proving that
the attributes of the Lord are not unreal. Like Śaṃkara and Bhās-
kara, he reads “sā” (meaning the parā-śakti of the Lord). Hence
the sūtra: “She (viz. the parā-śakti of the Lord) alone is truth and the
rest”. That is, the attributes of the Lord like truth, omniscience
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.38, pp. 817–819; Bh. B. 3.3.37 (written as 3.3.38), p. 190.

[sū. 3. 3. 38.
ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 661
and so on, are the modifications of the parā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti
of the Lord. Hence they are real, constituting the essential nature
of the Lord, and not illusory.¹
Adhikarana 17: The section entitled "Desire".
(Sūtras 38–40)
SŪTRA 38
"(THE ATTRIBUTES OF HAVING TRUE) DESIRE AND SO ON (ARE
TO BE INSERTED) ELSEWHERE (I.E. IN THE BṚHADĀRAṆYAKA)
AND THERE (I.E. IN THE CHĀNDOGYA), ON ACCOUNT OF ABODE
AND SO ON."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the Chāndogya, in the text beginning: "Now, that which is
within this city of Brahman is a small lotus-chamber. Small is the
ether within that. What is within that should be searched out"
(Chānd. 8.1.1 ²) and continuing: "This soul is free from sins" (Chānd.
8.1.5 ³), it is declared that the Highest Self, possessed of the attributes
of having true "desire and so on" is the object to be worshipped.
And in the Vājasaneyaka, in the text: "He, verily, is the great, unborn
self, who is this one consisting of knowledge among the vital-breaths,
who lies in the ether within the heart, the controller of all, the Lord
of all" (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ⁴), it is declared that the Highest Self, possessed
of the attributes of being the controller and so on, is the object to
be worshipped. Here the vidyās are identical. Hence the attributes
of having true desires and the rest are to be included in the Vājasa-
neyaka, and those of being the controller and so on in the Chāndogya.
Why? On account of the non-difference of abode and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, (the author) points out that when owing to the non-
difference of forms, the vidyās, mentioned in even different treatises,
are not different, how much more it is the case that the vidyās,
demonstrated by two sections of the same treatise, are not different
owing to the non-difference of forms.
¹ G.B. 3.3.39, pp. 177-178, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.
³ Ś. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

[Sū. 3. 3. 38.
662 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 17.]
Having designated the Highest Self by the term 'ether' in the
passage: "Now, that which is within this city of Brahman is a small
lotus-chamber, small is the ether within that. What is within that
should be searched for" (Chānd 8.1 1), the Chandogas go on to men-
tion His special characteristics by means of eight attributes, thus:
"This soul is free from sins, without old age, without death, without
grief, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true
resolves" ((Chānd. 8 1.5).
Having stated: "He, verily, is the great, unborn self, who is
this one consisting of knowledge among the vital-breaths, who lies
in the ether within the heart" (Bṛh. 4.4 22), the Vājasaneyins too go
on to mention His special characteristics by means of the attributes of
being a controller and so on, thus: "The controller of all, the ruler of
all" (Bṛh. 4.4.22).
Here the doubt is, viz. whether the vidyās of the Chandogas
and the Vājasaneyins are different, or whether they are identical.
On the suggestion, viz In the one case, the object to be meditated
on is the Highest Self, denoted by the term 'ether' and possessed of
the attributes of freedom from sins and so on; while in the other
case, the object to be meditated on is one who abides within a special
kind of ether and is possessed of the attributes of being a controller
and so on. This being so, owing to the difference of forms, there
results difference of the objects to be known, and hence the vidyās
differ,—
We reply: The vidyās are identical, owing to the non-difference
of forms. So says (the author): "Desire and the rest". "Desire
and the rest," i.e. the group of attributes like having true desires
and so on, mentioned in the Chāndogya text. "Free from sins"
(Chānd. 8.1.5) and so on, is to be inserted "elsewhere", i.e. in the
Vājasaneyaka. "And here," i.e. and in the Chāndogya, the group
of attributes like being the controller and so on, mentioned in the
Vājasaneyaka text, is to be inserted. This being so, the form
is not different; that being so, there is identity of the objects to be
meditated on and hence the vidyās are identical.
(The author) states the reasons for this mutual insertion of attri-
butes: "On account of abode and so on", i.e. on account of the non-
difference, in both the cases, of the abode, viz. the heart; ¹ of the
¹ Vide Chānd. 8.1.1; Bṛh. 4 4.22. See the quotations above.

[sū. 3. 3. 38.
ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 663
designation of Brahman, the object to be meditated on, as a bridge; ¹
and of the connection with the fruit, viz. the attainment of Brahman,
mentioned in the passages "Having attained the form of highest
light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd 8 4 4), "He becomes
the fearless Brahman" (Chānd 4.4.25)
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
This is sūtra 39 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an
adhikarana by itself. He begins by explaining the sūtra exactly
like Nimbārka, viz. that there is identity of the vidyās here and hence
the attributes are to be mutually combined. But in conclusion he
adds that there is, however, a difference between the two passages,
viz. that the Chāndogya text refers to the qualified Brahman, the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka text to the highest Brahman.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
He reads: "Kāmādayas tatra tatra". Interpretation same,
only while Nimbārka speaks of only two Upanisads, he speaks of three,
viz. Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Māhā-nārāyaṇa (Mahānār.
10.7), and points out that all these three passages refer to the same
vidyā.³ He takes it as forming an adhikarana by itself.
Baladeva
This is sūtra 40 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikarana
here (two sūtras) concerned with Śrī, the eternal consort of the Lord.
According to him, the words 'sā eva' are to be supplied here from the
preceding sūtra. Hence the sūtra: "She (viz. the parā-śakti of the
Lord) alone (is Śrī), (who creates all) objects of desire and so on else-
where (i.e. in the material world) and here (i.e. in the city of the Lord
or Saṃvyoma), (for the Lord) since (she is) all-pervading ("āya"),

¹ Vide Chānd. 8.4.1; Bṛh. 4.4.22.
² Ś.B. 3.3.38, p. 820, "Ayaṃ tu atra vidyate viśeṣaḥ, saguṇā hi Brahma-
vidyā Chāndogye Upadiśyate, . . . Vājasaneyake tu nirguṇam eva paraṃ Brah-
mopadiśyamānaṃ dṛśyate".
³ ŚK. 3.3.38, p. 350, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 39.
664 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 17.]
spreading out (“tana”) (bliss and release for the devotees) and so
on”.¹
SŪTRA 39
“ON ACCOUNT OF CARE, THERE IS NON-OMISSION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is no negation of the attributes of having true desires and
so on, recorded “carefully”, since the negation: “There is no plurality
here” (Bṛh. 4.4.19; Kaṭha 4 11 ²) refers to the things not having
Brahman for their essence.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It may be objected: The statement, made above, that the group
of attributes like ‘being the controller’ and so on, mentioned in the
Vājasaneyaka, is to be inserted in the Chāndogya, is not justifiable.
In accordance with the text under discussion, viz. “It is to be
perceived by the mind alone. There is no plurality here, He gets death
after death who perceives here apparent plurality. It is to be looked
upon as a unity alone,—this unknowable being” (Bṛh. 4.4.19-20), as
well as in accordance with the subsequent text: “This soul is not this,
not this” (Bṛh. 4.4.22), we arrive at the conclusion that the Highest
is free from distinctions. Hence it is known that like grossness,
atomicity and so on, the group of attributes like ‘being the controller’
and so on, is something to be negated. Hence, it should be known
that in the Chāndogya too, the group of attributes like having true
desires and so on, is something to be negated. This being so, such an
absence of attributes is to be included in all the meditations subserving
final release.—To this (the author) says:
There is “non-omission”, i.e. non-denial, of the attributes of the
Highest Brahman, like ‘having true desires’ and so on and ‘being the
controller’ and so on, which are incapable of being denied and
are taught “carefully” as something new in the texts: “What is
within that should be searched for” (Chānd. 8.1.1), “This soul is free
from sins, without old age, without death, without grief, without
hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves”
¹ G.B. 3.3.40, pp. 182–184, Chap. 3. ² R.

[sū. 3. 3. 39.
ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 665
(Chānd. 8.1.5), “Those who go, having found here the soul and the
true desires, come to have free movement in all the worlds” (Chānd.
8 1.6), “The controller of all, the ruler of all” (Bṛh. 4.4 22; 5.6.1),
“He is the Lord of all, he is the ruler of all beings, he is the protector
of all beings” (Bṛh. 4.4 22), “He is the separating dam for keeping
these worlds apart” (Bṛh. 4.4.22) and so on. On the contrary, they
are to be inserted, there being no authority for their denial.
The scriptural text: “There is no plurality here” (Bṛh. 4.4.19;
Kaṭha 4.11) states, on the other hand, that in Brahman, who is
the cause of the world, who is different and non-different from the
sentient and the non-sentient and who has the stated marks, there
is no ‘plurality’, i.e. there are no objects which, not having their
existence and activity dependent on Him are dependent on one another
only Since everything has Brahman for its essence, ‘he who perceives
here apparent plurality’, not having Brahman for his essence, ‘gets
death after death’. He is to be ‘looked upon as a unity alone’, since all
things have Brahman for their essence, and since there is nothing
which does not have Brahman for its essence. This is what the text
designates, but it does not prove that the real attributes of Brahman
are to be denied.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 40 in Śaṁkara’s commentary. They begin a new
adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different
topic, viz. whether the Prāṇāgni-hotra or the offering of the first food
to the vital-breaths, enjoined in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 5.19.1), is
to be omitted when eating itself is omitted or not. This sūtra states
the prima facie view, viz. that there is no omission of the offering
to the vital-breath even when there is the omission of eating, but it
has to be performed by means of water in place of food, since the
Jābāla version of the same vidyā (viz. Vaiśvānara-vidyā) shows
great respect for this ceremony of Prāṇāgni-hotra.
Śrīkaṇṭha
He takes it to be an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets it in a
sectarian way. The question is whether the form of the Lord as
having a blue neck (Nīla-kaṇṭha), having Umā by His side and having
attributes like true desires and so on is something to be negated

666 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 3. 40.
ADH. 17.]
or not. The prima facie view is that having parts like a blue neck
and so on involves increase and decrease and hence it is not possible
on the part of Brahman, the immutable. Therefore, the attributes
of having a blue neck, having Umā by the side and so on, are not His
real attributes, but are simply imagined for the sake of meditation
and are, as such, subject to negation sometime or other. The
answer is: "There is no negation (of the attributes having a blue
neck, three eyes, Umā by the side and so on), since (they are designated
in Scripture) with (great) care". That is, the Lord (viz. Śiva) is to
be meditated on always as having a blue neck and so on and as
accompanied by Umā,—which are His real attributes—for such a
meditation alone leads to release.¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 41 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic
of Śrī, viz. her identity with the parā-śakti of the Lord. The problem
is that if Śrī be identical with the parā-śakti of the Lord, then she
must be identical with the Lord Himself, since the parā-śakti of the
Lord is identical with Him. In that case, however, she cannot be
devoted to the Lord, since none can be devoted to one's own self.
The answer is: "On account of (her great) regard (for the Lord),
there is non-cessation (of her devotion for Him)". That is, Śrī,
though one with the Lord, cannot but love and be devoted to Him
who is her very existence, just as the branch cannot but love the tree,
or the ray the moon.²
SŪTRA 40
"WHEN ONE HAS APPROACHED (THE LORD, HE COMES TO HAVE
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT), FOR THIS REASON, ON ACCOUNT OF
STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
When one has attained Brahman by means of meditating on Him
who has the stated marks, one comes to have freedom of movement in
1 ŚK. B. 3.3.39, pp. 354-355, Parts 10 and 11.
2 G.B. 3.3.41, p. 185, Chap. 3. "Satyapya bhede vicitra-guṇaratnākarat-
vena sva-mūlatvena ca śriyaḥ parasmin ādarāt tad bhakter lopaḥ. Na khalu-
vṛkṣam anādriyamāṇā śākhāsti, na candram tatprabhā."

[SŪ. 3 3 40.
ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 667
all the worlds. If it be objected: How can one have freedom of
movement everywhere unless one first aspires to attain those
particular worlds and then practises the means leading to them?—We
reply: "For this reason", i.e. on account of this very reason of attaining
(the Lord), in accordance with the statement: "Having attained the
form of highest light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd.
8.3.4¹), "He becomes a self-ruler" (Chānd. 7.2 2²), "He comes to have
freedom of movement in all the worlds" (Chānd. 7.25.2³).
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. In the texts: "Now, those who depart
having the self here and these true desires come to have freedom of
movement in all the worlds. If he comes to desire the world of
fathers" (Chānd. 8 2.1) and so on, it is declared that even by those
who desire salvation, the worlds common to those who desire
enjoyment are attained. This being so, what difference is there
between devotion to works and devotion to knowledge?—(the author)
says:
"When one has approached," i.e. when the knower, freed from
all connection with matter in its causal and effected states, has come
to attain the nature of Brahman, he attains freedom of movement
in all the worlds. Why? "For this reason" alone, i e. on account of
the very reason of attaining the nature of Brahman. The sense is
this: Just as a man, desirous of universal sovereignty, having given
up the objects of enjoyment, common to all men, as well as the
means thereto, attains universal sovereignty through the means
thereto, and afterwards for just that reason, comes to have freedom
of movement among the objects of enjoyment that are common to
all men, as well among those that are difficult to be attained by
them,—though not desired by him,—so the knower, having given
up all enjoyments, here or hereafter, as well as the means thereto,
attains the nature of the Lord through the hearing, thinking,
meditation, worship and so on of Him; and for that very reason
of attaining His nature, comes to have freedom of movement
everywhere. Whence is this known? To this (the author) replies.
"From statement to that effect", i.e. from the statement, every-
where, of a knower's having freedom of movement, such as

¹ R, ŚK. ² R. ³ Op. cit.
13

[SŪ. 3. 3. 40.
668 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 17.]
"Having attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his
own form" (Chānd. 8.3.4, 8.12.3), "He is the excellent person.
He roams about there laughing, playing, enjoying with women, or
with carriages, or with relatives, not remembering the appendage
of this body" (Chānd. 8.12.3), "He becomes a self-ruler. He comes
to have freedom of movement in all the worlds" (Chānd. 7.25.2),
"As to the perfection of means to the four ends of men,—without
it a man, whose refuge is Nārāyaṇa, attains them", and so on. Thus,
there is a great difference between devotion to works and devotion to
knowledge. Hence it is established that through the mutual insertion
of the attributes of having true desires and so on and of being the
controller and the rest, the Brahma-vidyās of the Chāndogas and
of the Vājasaneyins are the very same.
Here ends the section entitled "Desire" (17).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 41 in Śaṁkara's commentary. Here they answer
the prima facie view stated in the previous sūtra, thus: "When
(eating is actually) taking place, (then alone an offering to the vital-
breaths is to be made) from that (i.e. from the first food), on account
of statement to the effect". ¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpreta-
tion different. The question is whether the freed attain the very
nature of Brahman, as possessed of infinite auspicious attributes,
and so on, or something else. The prima facie view is that Brahman
is declared to be free from distinctions or nirviśeṣa. Hence the
freed souls attain this distinctionless form of Brahman. The answer
is: "When one has approached (Brahman, one attains the nature of
Brahman as possessed of all auspicious attributes), for that reason
(i.e. because the freed soul attains its own form), (and) because of
texts to that effect (i.e. that the freed become similar to the Lord)". ²
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.41, pp. 822–824; Bh. B. 3.3.40 (written as 3 3 41), pp. 191-192.
² ŚK. B. 3.3.40, pp. 356-357, Parts 10 and 11.
13B

[SŪ. 3. 3. 41.
ADH. 18.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 669
Baladeva
This is sūtra 42 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic
of the identity of Śrī with the parā-śakti of the Lord and hence with
the Lord Himself. The contention is that if Śrī be identical with the
Lord, then no erotic sentiment is possible between them, since any
such sentiment is possible only if there be a difference between the
lover and the beloved. The answer is : “(Śrī being the highest of the
females and the Lord being the best of the males, an erotic sentiment
naturally arises between them) when (they) have approached (each
other), hence (such a sentiment is possible on the part of the Lord),
on account of statement to that effect”. ¹
Adhikaraṇa 18: The section entitled “Non-
restriction with regard to the specifying of
that”. (Sūtra 41²)
SŪTRA 41
“(THERE IS) NON-RESTRICTION WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIFYING
OF THAT, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT BEING SEEN, FOR THE FRUIT
(VIZ.) NON-OBSTRUCTION IS ‘DIFFERENT’.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is “non-restriction” (i.e. no fixed rule) that the meditations
that are founded on the subordinate parts of sacrificial acts and are
mentioned in texts like: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the
udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1³) and so on (are to be included) in those acts.
Why? Because in the scriptural text: “Both perform with it, he who
knows this thus and he who does not know thus” (Chānd. 1.1.10⁴),
such a non-restriction is found. As we learn from Scripture that
even a non-worshipper is a performer of sacrificial works through
the praṇava, a subsidiary part of sacrificial works, so it is ascertained
that there is no restriction with regard to the act of meditation.
And hence that the fruit of meditation is “different” from the fruit
of work is known from the passage: “What only one does with
¹ G.B. 3.3.42, p. 186, Chap. 3.
² This topic is resumed in Br. Sū. 3.3.59–64.
³ Ś, R, Bh. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

670 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 41.
ADH. 18 ]
knowledge, with faith, with the mystic doctrine,—that only becomes
more potent" (Chānd 1.1.10 ¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been shown at the end of the previous section that
there is a great difference between meditation and work, since the
former is the cause of a knower's (attaining) freedom of movement
and a supreme place. Now (the author) is showing the superiority
of meditation to work, on the ground of the superiority of the fruit
of the meditations, founded on the subsidiary parts of work, over that
of mere works (like sacrifices, etc ) though performed together with all
their subsidiary parts.
Now, there are certain meditations which are founded on the
udgītha and the rest, the subsidiary parts of sacrificial works, such as ·
"Let one meditate on the syllable 'Om' as the udgītha" (Chānd.
1 1.1) and so on. Here the doubt is as to whether they are to be
inserted regularly in the sacrificial acts, like the quality of being made
of parṇa-wood ²; or not regularly, like the milking-vessel With
regard to this, the prima facie view is as follows: As the designation
about the meditation on the udgītha, viz.: "Whatever one does
with knowledge, with faith, with the mystic doctrine, that becomes
more potent" (Chānd. 1.1.10), does not mention any separate result,
—just as the hearing of non-sinful verses connected with the quality
of being made of the parṇa-wood, mentioned in the passage · "He
whose sacrificial ladle is made of the prana-wood does not hear sinful
verses" (Tait. Saṃ. 3 5.7 ³) (is not a separate or special fruit),—so
the meditations on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts are to be
inserted regularly (in those acts) as their subsidiary parts, just as
the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood (is always connected
with sacrificial acts) through the sacrificial ladle.⁴

¹ Ś, Bh, ŚK. Vide Br. Sū. 4.1.18.
² A beautiful sacred tree of the wood of which particular sacrificial vessels are
made.
³ P. 311, lines 23-24, vol. 1.
⁴ The problem here is as to whether the meditations, enjoined in the Upa-
niṣads, on certain subsidiary parts of sacrifices, such as, on the udgītha and so on,
are necessarily connected with those sacrifices, i.e. are to be undertaken whenever
those sacrifices are undertaken ; or whether they may be undertaken optionally in
accordance with the will of the sacrificer. In the former case, such meditations

[SŪ. 3. 3. 41.
ADH. 18.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 671
With regard to it, we reply "Non-restriction with regard to the
specifying of that", and so on. The word "specifying" ("nirdhāraṇa)
means complete retention by the mind ¹, i e meditation. There is
"non-restriction" with regard to the meditation "of that", i.e. of the
meditations founded on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, such
as the udgītha-meditation and the like. That is, the meditations on
the udgītha and the rest are not to be inserted regularly in sacrifices
as their subsidiary parts Why? "On account of that being seen,"
i e. because such a non-restriction is found in Scripture Thus, in
the scriptural text: "Both perform with this, he who knows ² this
thus and he who does not know thus" (Chānd. 1.1 10), even a non-
knower being stated to be an agent, it is ascertained that there is no
fixed rule that the meditations founded on the udgītha and the rest
would stand to the sacrifices in the same relation as the quality of being made
of the parṇa-wood (parṇamayītva) does. The quality of being made of the
parṇa-wood is permanently connected with sacrifices through the sacrificial
ladle made of the parṇa-wood. Similarly, these meditations on the udgītha
and the rest would, on this view, be permanently connected with the sacrifices
through the udgītha and the rest. That is, in accordance with the dictum laid
down in Pū. Mī. Sū. 3 6.1-2 (vide Śab. B. on the same, pp. 366–368), a sacrificial
ladle made of the parṇa-wood is an essential ingredient of a sacrifice and is to
be included in it whenever it is performed Similarly, on the first view. the
meditations on the udgītha and so on are to be performed whenever the main
sacrifices are performed.
In the latter case, however, such meditations would stand to the sacrifices
in the same relation as the milking-vessel does. That is, in accordance with
the dictum laid down in Pū. Mī. Sū 4.1.2 (vide Śab B on the same, p. 436),
the milking-vessel (go-dohana) is used in certain sacrifices, viz. in the Daśa-
pūrṇa-māsa, not universally, but only occasionally, i.e. only if the sacrificer
desires for a special end, viz. cattle. Similarly, on the second view, the medita-
tions on the udgītha and the rest are not obligatory to the main sacrifices, but
only optional.
The prima facie view is that the meditations on the udgītha and the rest
serve no special purpose, as the using of the milking-vessel, e.g. does. They simply
secure the greater potency of the sacrifices which is the general fruit of all
other connected acts, just as having one's sacrificial ladle made of the parṇa-
wood secures no special result. Hence it cannot be said those meditations on
the udgītha and the like are to be undertaken at will for the sake of securing a
special result. Therefore, they are to be undertaken always with the sacrifices.
¹ Niravaśeṣatayā dhāraṇam-nirdhāraṇam.
² Here the word "veda" (=knows) may be translated in conformity with
the context, as "meditates", the text meaning that one may perform a sacrifice
either with meditating on the Om, or not meditating on it.

672 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA. [SŪ. 3. 3 41.
ADH. 18 ]
are to be inserted regularly in sacrificial acts as their subordinate
parts. Further, as the fruit of the injunction of meditation is different
from that of sacrificial acts, there is no fixed rule with regard
to the meditations on that,—so says (the author): "For different",
i e. because "the fruit" of the injunction of meditation, consisting
in "non-obstruction", is declared by Scripture to be "different"
from the fruit of sacrificial works. The sense is that the fruit of
one work is obstructed by the fruit of another stronger work; the
fruit of the injunction of meditation is the opposite of that. In
accordance with the text: "Both perform with it, he who knows this
thus and he who does not know thus Diverse, however, are knowledge
and non-knowledge What only one does with knowledge, with faith,
with the mystic doctrine, that only becomes more potent" (Chānd
1 1.10), 'with it', i.e. with the Om-kara, forsooth, both perform
sacrificial acts. Though 'he who knows' 'this', i e the syllable, Om,
'thus', i e. as possessed of the attributes of being the finest essence and
so on, and 'he who does not know', are both equal in point of being
agents, yet there is a difference in the result on account of knowledge
and non-knowledge,—this is what the text designates. Here 'know-
ledge' is 'diverse', i e. different from 'non-knowledge' That work
which one does 'with knowledge', 'with faith', 'with the mystic
doctrine', i.e. with the meditation on the Mystic Deity, 'becomes
more potent',—this is the sense. Hence, it is established that just
as the text: "For one desiring cattle he should fetch water in a milking-
vessel" establishes a (special) fruit of the (use of) the milking-vessel,
having the fetching of water as its abode ¹,—here as the text
can very well be so interpreted, the milking-vessel is not a subordinate
part of sacrificial acts,—so the meditations, founded on the subsidiary
elements of sacrificial acts are to be included in those acts optionally.
Here ends the section entitled "Non-restriction with regard to
the specifying of that" (18).
1 That is, the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood cannot have a
special result of its own, since it is only a quality and not an act and must, as
such, abide in a substratum to be connected with any result. But the milking-
vessel may have a special fruit, since it has an act, viz. the fetching of water,
as its abode. Vide Ś.B. 3.3.42, p. 826.

[SŪ 3. 3. 42.
ADH. 19.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 673
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 43 in his commentary. He too takes it to be an
adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned, however, with an entirely different
topic The question is as to whether the Lord is to be meditated on
as Kṛṣṇa alone. The answer is : "(There is) no restriction with regard
to the specifying of that (viz. the Lord), (i.e. there is no fixed rule that
the Lord is to be worshipped as Kṛṣṇa alone), on account of that
being found (in Scripture), for there is a soparate fruit, (viz.) non-
obstruction (of the worship of Kṛṣṇa)". That is, the worship of
Kṛṣṇa is the unobstructed or direct means to salvation, while the
worship of other deities is the indirect means ¹
Adhikaraṇa 19. The section entitled "Offer-
ing". (Sūtra 42)
SŪTRA 42
“SIMPLY AS IN THE CASE OF OFFERING, THAT HAS BEEN SAID.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
During the meditations on the attributes also, the meditation
on the dahara (or the small), the substratum of the attributes, is to be
repeated as qualified by those attributes respectively, "as in the case
of the offering" of the sacrificial cake ², designated in the text:
"Let one offer the sacrificial cake on eleven potsherds to Indra, the
king, to Indra, the over-lord, to Indra, the self-ruler" (Tait. Saṃ.
2.3.6 ³). "That has been said," viz. "Diverse, forsooth, are the
divinities, owing to different conceptions".⁴
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been said above that the meditations founded on the sub-
sidiary parts of sacrificial acts are not to be inserted in those acts
¹ G.B. 3.3.43, pp. 189-190, Chap. 3.
² Puroḍāś.
³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk. P. 174, lines 13-14, vol. 1.
⁴ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

674 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 42.
ADH. 19 ]
regularly Now, apprehending the objection, viz. that just as the
meditations on the subsidiary parts are independent of the whole,
so the meditations on the attributes are independent of the meditation
on the substratum of attributes—it is said.
Under the Dahara-vidyā 1, after having first stated the small
ether, i.e. the soul, the substratum of the attributes, as the object
to be meditated on thus: “Now, those who depart having known the
self here” (Chānd. 8 1 6), the text goes on to set forth separately
once more the meditations on the attributes of being free from sins
and the rest too thus “And these true desires” (Chānd. 8.1.6). Here
the doubt is as to whether while meditating on an attribute, the
small ether, the substratum of the attributes, too is to be meditated
on as possessed of that particular attribute, or not On the sugges-
tion: As the small ether can very well be meditated on at all times
as qualified by the attributes of being free from sins and so on, during
the meditation on the attributes, the meditation on Him as qualified
by those particular attributes is not to be repeated
We reply. “As in the case of offering”, the meditation on the
small ether, the substratum of attributes, as qualified by those parti-
cular attributes, is to be repeated with the meditations on those
attributes themselves. The sense is this. Although those attributes
like freedom from sins and so on have only one substratum, viz. the
small ether, yet in accordance with the text: “Free from sins, without-
old age” (Chānd. 8.1.5) and so on, which intends to designate its
(different) forms as qualified by those particular attributes, it is to be
meditated on as diverse. Just as in the case of the sacrifice comprising
three sacrificial cakes, laid down in the text. “Let one offer the sacri-
ficial cake on eleven potsherds to Indra, the king, to Indra, the
over-lord, to Indra, the self-ruler” (Tait. Saṃ. 2.3.6 2), although the
same Indra is qualified by the attributes of kingship and the rest,
yet as the attributes of kingship, over-lordship and self-rulership
are different from one another, the god himself is taken to have
different forms as qualified by each particular attribute, and as such the
“offerings” of the sacrificial cakes are repeated,—so is the case
1 Vide Chānd. 8.1 ff. See V.K. 3.3.1, for further explanation.
2 The text continues to designate these three epithets thus “Indra, the
king is this (earth); Indra, the over-lord, is this (atmosphere); Indra, the self-
ruler is the yonder (heaven)—. There are three cakes, these worlds are three”.

[sū. 3. 3. 42
ADH. 19 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 675
here. “That has been said” in the section treating of the divinities :
“Diverse, forsooth, are the divinities owing to different conceptions”.
Hence it is established that during the meditation on an attribute,
the meditation on the small ether in that particular form, qualified by
that particular attribute, is to be repeated
Here ends the section entitled “Offering” (19).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 42 in Śaṁkara’s commentary Śaṁkara and Bhās-
kara too take it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, though concerned
with an entirely different topic. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka (Bṛh. 1 5 21),
the vital-breath is said to be the best among the organs of the body,
and the air to be the best among the gods. Similarly, in the Chān-
dogya (Chānd. 4.3.1), the air is said to be the general absorber of the
gods, and (Chānd. 4.3.3) the vital-breath is said to be the general
absorber of the organs of the body. Here the question is as to whether
the air and the vital-breath are to be conceived as separate or not.
The prima facie view is that they are not to be conceived as separate,
since they do not differ in their true nature. But the real view is that
although they are fundamentally one, yet they are to be meditated
on separately, since the texts teach them separately. Hence the
vidyās here are not the same, but there are two separate vidyās. The
parallel instance cited from the Taittirīya-saṁhitā and the maxim
are the same as those cited by Nimbārka. Thus the sūtra : “As in
the case of offering (the air and the vital-breath are to be conceived
separately), that has been said”.¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 44 in his commentary. He too takes it as an adhi-
karaṇa by itself, but concerned with an entirely different topic, viz.
the grace of the spiritual preceptor. Hence the sūtra: “Like the
giving (of knowledge by the preceptor) alone that has been said”.
That is, salvation depends upon the extent the preceptor is pleased
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.43, pp. 827–830; Bh. B. 3.3.42 (written as 3.3.43), p. 192.

[sū. 3 3. 43
676 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 20.]
to impart knowledge to the devotee. Mere study of the Veda is not
enough to ensure the attainment of Brahman, but the grace of the
preceptor is necessary too 1
Adhikarana 20: The section entitled "The
majority of indicatory marks". (Sūtras 43-
50)
SŪTRA 43
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE MAJORITY OF INDICATORY MARKS, FOR THAT
(VIZ INDICATORY MARK) IS STRONGER, THIS ALSO (HAS BEEN
EXPLAINED)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The fires, piled up by the mind, piled up by speech, piled up by
the vital-breath, piled up by the eye, piled up by the ear, piled up by
action, piled up by the fire, and so on,2 are simply the subsidiary parts
of a sacrifice consisting in meditation 3, "on account of the majority
of the indicatory marks", such as: "Whatever these conceive with
their mind that alone is their composition" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3 4),
"All beings at all times pile up those (fires) for him who knows thus,
even while he sleeps" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12 5) and so on; "for" an indi-
catory mark is "stronger" than the context. "This also" has been
said in the section treating of what is supplementary to sacrifices·
"If there be combination of direct association, indicatory mark,
syntactical connection, context, place and name, then each succeeding
one is weaker (than each preceding one), on account of its remoteness
from the meaning" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.14 6).
1 G.B 3.3.44, p. 192, Chap. 3.
2 Vide Śat. Br. 10.5.3 (whole), pp. 796–798
3 I.e. these fires do not constitute parts of real sacrifices, and are not actually
lighted during the performance of sacrifices, but are simply parts of meditation,
i.e. mentally imagined fires.
4 P. 796, lines 7-8. This shows that the fires are composed by mind only,
i.e. not actual fires.
5 P. 798, lines 14-15. Ś, Bh.
6 P. 284, vol. 1. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[sū. 3. 3. 43.
ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 677
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now (the author) points out that the fires too, that are going
to be designated now, are not to be taken as subsidiary parts of
sacrificial acts, just as the meditations founded on the subsidiary
elements of sacrificial acts are not to be taken as such.
Having begun: "Verily, in the beginning, this was not existent,
not even non-existent" (Śat. Br. 10 5 3, 1 1), having described the
appearance of the mind, and having referred to the mind, by pointing
out that that mind saw the fires belonging to itself 2, thus: "It saw
the thirty-six thousand fires, the suns, belonging to itself, made of
the mind, piled up by the mind. By the mind alone they were placed,
by the mind they were piled up, by the mind the cups were taken in
them, by the mind they praised, by the mind they recited. Whatever
work is done in a sacrifice" (Śat. Br. 10 5 3, 3 3) and so on, the Vāja-
saneyins, thus, record imaginary fires, piled up by the mind and
so on, viz piled up by speech, piled up by the eye, piled up by
action, piled up by fire,4 and so on, in the "Mystery of Fire".5 The
life of a person lasts a hundred years. It consists of thirty-six
thousand days and nights. In the course of a single day and
night, many mental modes arise, and they are taken to be one
because they have arisen in the course of the same day and night.
Thus, there are thirty-six thousand mental modes in the course of
thirty-six thousand days and nights, and they are demonstrated as
the bricks which are subsidiary parts of sacrifices, and as elemental
fires, by the text: "Thirty-six thousands" (Śat Br. 10 5.3, 1) and so
on. Among these, those which are 'piled up', i.e. built, by the mind
are the 'mind-piled'. Similarly, the meaning of the texts 'breath-
piled' and so on are to be understood as the case may be.
Here the doubt is as to whether these fires, piled up by the mind
and so on are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in actual action,
they being mentioned in a section concerned with sacrificial acts;
or whether they are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting only in
meditation.
1 P. 796, line 1.
2 Quotation mark wrong (in the text).
3 P. 796, lines 4-6.
4 Quotation mark wrong (in the text).
5 The name of the tenth book of the Śat. Br.

678 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ 3. 3. 43.
ADH 20 ]
First, (the author) begins with the correct conclusion, thus:
"On account of the majority of indicatory marks". They are sub-
sidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation only Why?
"On account of the majority of indicatory marks," i e on account
of the majority or numerosity of the indicatory marks, such as "What-
ever these conceive with the mind alone that alone is their com-
position" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3), "All beings at all times pile up those
(fires) for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12)
and so on. "For that," i.e. for an indicatory mark, is "stronger"
than the context. "That also," i e the fact of its being of a greater
force, is stated in the Karma-Kāṇḍa thus. "If there be combination
of direct assertion, indicatory mark, syntactical connection, context,
place and name, then each succeeding one is weaker (than each
preceding one), on account of its remoteness from the meaning"
(Pū. Mī. Sū. 3 3 14).
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja
He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikarana by itself,
concerned with an entirely different topic. The question is as to
whether the eleventh section of the Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad,—con-
stituting the same vidyā as the vidyā, viz. the Dahara-vidyā, men-
tioned in the tenth section—establishes only the object to be meditated
on in that vidyā, or an object to be meditated on in all Brahma-
vidyās. The prima facie view is that this section, in accordance
with the context, establishes the object which is to be meditated on
in the Dahara-vidyā only. The answer is. "(It establishes an object
to be meditated in all Brahma-vidyās), on account of the majority
of indicatory marks, (i.e. because there are many specific indications
that Nārāyaṇa, designated in this section, is none but the object to
be meditated on in all Brahma-vidyās), for that (viz. mark) is stronger
(than the context), that too (has been stated in the Pūrva-mīmāṃsā)".¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
He too takes this sūtra as forming an adhikarana by itself, con-
cerned with a topic similar to that of Rāmānuja, only referring to
a different passage, designating Rudra instead of Nārāyaṇa. Thus,
¹ Śrī. B. 3.3.43, pp. 325-326, Part 2.