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

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.

[sū. 3. 3. 44.
ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 679
the question is as to whether the Supreme Brahman or Rudra, accom-
panied by Umā, mentioned in the thirteenth section of the Mahā-
nārāyaṇa-upaniṣad, is the object to be meditated on in all the parā-
vidyās, or only in that particular vidyā of that section. The prima
facie view is that in accordance with the context, such a Supreme
Brahman is to be meditated on in that particular vidyā alone. The
answer is the same as that given by Rāmānuja, viz.: "(Such a Brahman
is to be meditated on in all the parā-vidyās on account of the majority
of indicatory marks—" ¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 45 in his commentary. He too takes this sūtra
to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an altogether
different topic, viz. the grace of the spiritual teacher. Hence the
sūtra: "On account of the majority of indicatory marks, (viz. scrip-
tural texts), that (i.e. the grace of the teacher), is stronger (than any
other element in bringing about final emancipation), (but) that also
(viz. exertion on one's own part, viz. study, meditation and so on,)
(must be continued)".²
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 44-45)
SŪTRA 44
"(THE FIRES BUILT UP BY THE MIND AND THE REST) MAY BE AN
ALTERNATIVE FORM OF THE PRECEDING FIRE BUILT UP BY BRICKS)
ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONTEXT, (THEY ARE) ACTION, AS IN THE CASE
OF THE MENTAL (VESSEL)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Now the prima facie view: This "may be an alternative form"
of that same "preceding" (fire) consisting in action enjoined in the
text: "With bricks he piles up the fire" ³. Since the indicatory mark
here is contained in the descriptive portion, the stated fires are indeed
of the form of action, as in the case of: "He takes the mental vessel".⁴
¹ Śk. B 3.3.43, pp 362 ff., Parts 10 and 11.
² G.B. 3.3.45, p 193, Chap. 3.
³ Bh. ⁴ Op. cit.

[SŪ 3. 3. 44.
680 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 20.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now (the author) states the prima facie view
This “may be” “an alternative form”, i.e. a mode, of the same
“preceding fire”, enjoined in the passage: “With bricks he piles up
the fire”. Why? “On account of the context,” i.e. because pre-
viously in the passage “The non-existent, verily, was thus in the
beginning” (Śat Br 6.1.1, 1 ¹), the fire, piled up by bricks, is men-
tioned.
If it be argued that it has been said that context is weaker than
indicatory mark,—(we reply.) no, since the stated indicatory marks,
being contained in the descriptive portion and as such concerned with
the glorification of the mentioned imaginary fires, form a coherent
whole with the injunction, and are hence not true in their own literal
sense. Hence the fact that they are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice
consisting in meditation is set aside by the context. Therefore these
fires too, which have the form of meditation, are really of the form
of action, “as in the case of the mental (vessel)” That is, just as the
offering of the mental vessel on the tenth day of the twelve-days’
sacrifice, mentioned in the passage “With this (earth) as the jug,
with the sea as the juice, he takes the mental cup, offered to Prajāpati,
for you” ², though of the form of meditation, is yet of the form of
action because of being the subsidiary part of a sacrifice consisting
in action, so is the case here.
Baladeva
This is sūtra 46 in his commentary He begins a new adhikaraṇa
here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different topic, viz.
meditation on the self as identical with the Lord (So'ham). Hence
the sūtra: “(The meditation on the self as identical with the Lord)
may be an optional form of the former (viz. devotion) on account of
1 P. 499, line 1.
2 A similar passage is found in Āp. Ś.S. 21.10.2.
The sense is that on the tenth day of the Soma sacrifice, lasting twelve
days, a cup is offered mentally to Prajāpati, the earth being imagined to be the
cup and the sea the soma-juice. Now, all operations connected with this cup
are mental, yet the offering of the cup is taken to be a real, and not an imaginary
action, since it is connected with a real sacrifice. In the same way, the fires
built up by the mind and so on, though mental, are to be taken as parts of real
sacrifices, so says the prima facie objector. Vide Ś.B. 3.3.46, pp. 832-833

[sū. 3. 3 45.
ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 681
the context (i e the Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī), like (the physical) acts
(of offerings and so on), (and) the mental (acts of meditation and so
on)". That is, expressions like 'I am he', and so on, uttered by God-
intoxicated devotees in a state of extreme ecstasy, are not to be
understood literally as implying an identity between the Lord and His
devotee, because they are only particular moods of meditation, just
as offerings and the like are.¹
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded)
SŪTRA 45
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFERENCE"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text: "Of these, each is as great as the former" (Śat. Br.
10.3.3, 11 ²), the power of the former fire is transferred to them. Hence
they are indeed of the form of action.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the text: "There are thirty-six thousand fires, the suns.
Of these, each is as great as the former" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3.11), the
power of the previous fire, piled up by bricks, is transferred to them.
On account of such a transference as well, the fires piled up by the
mind and the rest are indeed of the form of action.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 47 in his commentary. Here he concludes the section
about the 'I am he'—meditation. Hence the sūtra: "Also on account
of analogy". That is, in the Gopāla-uttara-tāpanī-upaniṣad, the
Lord is compared to a loving father, and the devotee to His son.
This shows that the individual soul is not identical with the Lord.
Hence sentiments like 'I am he' and so on are but modes of devotion,
and do not indicate any identity between the two.³

¹ G.B. 3.3.46, p. 195, Chap. 3 3. "Prakāra-viśeṣeva, nārthāntaram."
² P. 798, lines 13-14. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
³ G.B. 3.3.47, pp. 199-200, Chap. 3.

682 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 3. 46.
ADH. 20.]
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 46–50)
SŪTRA 46
"BUT (THEY ARE) MEDITATION ALONE, ON ACCOUNT OF SPECI-
FICATION AND ON ACCOUNT OF OBSERVATION (I.E. SCRIPTURAL
TEXT)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The correct conclusion is that they are of the natue of medita-
tion alone Why? "On account of the specification," viz. · "For
they are piled up by knowledge alone" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12 ¹); and also
because in that very treatise, viz in the text: "By the mind 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
chanted. Whatever work is done in a sacrifice" (Śat. Br. 10.5 3, 3²)
and so on, a sacrifice consisting of meditation is designated—the
whole, of which they (viz. the fires) are subsidiary parts
Vedānta-kaustubha
(The author) states the correct conclusion.
The word "but" is meant for disposing of the prima facie view.
The word "only" implies emphasis. The fires piled up by the mind
and so on cannot be of the form of action, but are "meditation alone,"
i.e. are of the nature of meditation alone, or are subsidiary parts of
a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Why? "On account of specifica-
tion and on account of observation," i e because of the specification,
viz.. "For they are piled up by knowledge alone" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12),
and because in the text. "By mind alone they are placed, by mind
they are piled up, by mind the cups are taken in them, by mind they
praised, by mind they chanted. Whatever work is done in a sacrifice,
whatever sacrificial work there is, that, consisting of mind alone,
was performed by mind alone, in these, consisting of mind, piled up
by mind" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3), a sacrifice consisting in meditation
alone is designated—the whole, of which they are subsidiary parts
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ P. 798, lines 14-15. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
² P. 796, lines 5-6. R, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 47.
ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 683
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
They break the sūtra into two separate sūtras thus: "Vidyaiva
.... nirdhāraṇāt" and "Darśanāc ca". Interpretation same.
Baladeva
Like Śaṃkara, he too breaks the sūtra into two separate sūtras.
He begins a new adhikarana here (three sūtras) concerned with
showing that vidyā or devotion based on knowledge alone is the means
to salvation. Thus: Sūtra 48.—"But vidyā alone (is the means to
salvation), on account of specification, (i e. because Scripture mentions
it exclusively, neither karma nor a combination of vidyā and
karma)."¹ Sūtra 49 —"And because (salvation results) from the
direct vision (of the Lord)." That is, the direct vision of the Lord is
attainable through vidyā alone. Hence vidyā alone is the cause
of salvation.²
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 47
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE GREATER FORCE OF DIRECT SCRIPTURAL
STATEMENT AND THE REST, (THERE IS) NO SETTING ASIDE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the greater force" of the direct scriptural state-
ment", viz : "For they are piled up by the mind alone" (Śat. Br.
10.5.3, 12 ³); of the indicatory mark; "All beings at all times pile up
(those fires) for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps" (Śat. Br.
10.5.3, 12 ⁴); and of the syntactical connection: "For through know-
ledge alone these are piled up for one who knows thus" (Śat. Br.
10.5.3, 12 ⁵), there is "no setting aside" of the fact that these fires
are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation.
¹ G.B. 3.3.48, p. 202, Chap. 3.
² Op. cit., 3.3.49, p. 203.
³ P. 798, line 14. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
⁴ P. 798, lines 14-15. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
⁵ P. 798, line 15. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
14

[SŪ. 3. 3. 47.
684 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 20.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. to say that those fires piled up by the
mind and so on are here subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting
in meditation, does not stand to reason. As in the text: "With
mind they were placed" (Śat Br. 10.5 3, 3) there is no mention of an
injunctive word, and as we do not perceive their connection with
a fruit, so the fact of their being subsidiary parts of a sacrifice
consisting in meditation is set aside by the context, concerned with a
sacrifice consisting in action, and suggested to the mind by fires piled
up by bricks—(the author) replies :
There is "no setting aside", by the context, of the fact of their
being subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Why ?
"On account of the greater force of direct scriptural statement and
the rest" than the context By the words "and the rest", indicatory
mark and syntactical connection are to be understood. The direct
scriptural text is: "For these are piled up by knowledge alone"
(Śat. Br. 10.5 3, 12). The indicatory mark is: "All beings at all times
pile up these for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps" (Śat.
Br. 10.5.3, 12). The syntactical connection is : "For by knowledge
alone these are piled up for one who knows thus" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 50 in his commentary. Here he concludes the section
about vidyā being the only means to salvation. It may be objected
that some texts speak of karma as the means to salvation, while some
texts again speak of the combination of karma and vidyā as such a
means. The answer is: "And on account of the greater force of Scrip-
ture and so on (there is) no setting aside (of our view)." That is, the
scriptural texts quoted by us in support of our view that vidyā alone
is the cause of release is of a far greater authority than the Smṛti
texts quoted by the prima facie objector to prove his case.¹
¹ G.B. 3.3.50.
14B

[SŪ. 3. 3. 48
ADH. 20 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 685
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 48
"ON ACCOUNT OF INSEPARABLE ADJUNCTS AND THE REST, LIKE
THE SEPARATENESS OF OTHER COGNITIONS, AND (BECAUSE IT)
IS SEEN, THAT HAS BEEN SAID."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the inseparable adjuncts" like hymns, recitations
and so on 1, mentioned in the text. "By mind the cups were taken
in them" (Śat. Br 10 5.3, 3 2), and on account of direct scriptural
statement and the rest,3 the sacrifice consisting in meditation is indeed
different, "like the separateness of other vidyās", such as, the Śāṇḍilya-
vidyā and so on This being so, an injunction is to be supposed
"And" it is "found" that in the case of what is similar to a mere state-
ment, e g. in the passage: "What alone one does with knowledge"
(Chānd. 1.1.10 4), an injunction is supposed. It has been "stated"
as well: "But the texts, on account of being new" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 10.4.22 5)
and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection stated above, viz. that because of the non-
mention of an injunctive word in the text: "By mind alone they
were placed" (Śat. Br. 10.5 3, 3), and because we do not perceive their
connection with a fruit,—to say that they are subordinate members
of a sacrifice consisting in meditation does not stand to reason,—
(the author) replies:
The sacrifice consisting in meditation is indeed different from
the sacrifice consisting in action, and (hence) the fact that they (i.e.
fires) are the subordinate members of the former does stand to reason.
Why? "On account of the inseparable adjuncts and the rest,"
i e. on account of the inseparable adjuncts, transference, Scripture
and so on. Among these, the inseparable adjuncts, (i.e. the attendant
performances) are stated in the text: "By mind the cups were taken
in them" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3). As a sacrifice consisting in action and

1 This last portion "like . . . so on" is omitted in the C.S.S. ed.
2 Ś, R, Bh, Śk. 3 See V.P.S. 3.3.47.
4 Śk. 5 P. 453, vol. 2. R, Śk.