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

[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.

[sū. 3. 3. 48.
686 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 20 ]
its subordinate members are directly perceivable, these would be
meaningless if there be not a separate sacrifice consisting in medi-
tation The inseparable adjuncts of a sacrifice are the cups, hymns,
recitation and so on. The transference, viz. "Of these, each is as
great as the former" (Śat. Br 10.5.3, 11) has been mentioned above.
Such a transference does not fit in if there be no difference (between
these two)¹. The scriptural text and the rest have been indicated
above.²
With regard to this, a parallel instance is cited thus: "Like
the separateness of other cognitions" Just as other cognitions like
the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest are different from a sacrifice
consisting in action, as well as from other vidyās, owing to their
respective peculiar adjuncts, so is the case here too. This being
so, an injunction is to be supposed. "And" it is "found" that in
the case of what is similar to a mere statement, e g. in the text:
"What alone one does with knowledge" (Chānd. 1.1.10) and so on,
an injunction is supposed. "That has been said," thus: "But the
texts, on account of being new" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 10.4 22). Their connec-
tion with a fruit too may be known from the transference: "Of
these, each one is as great as the former" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 11)
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He breaks this sūtra into two different sūtras:—"Anubandhā-
dibhya" and "Prajñāntara . . . . taduktam," and interprets them
absolutely differently. Thus:
Sūtra 51.—He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself,
concerned with the worship of holy men. Hence the sūtra: "On
account of injunction and so on". That is, Scripture expressly
enjoins the worship of great and good men, and hence such an worship
must be undertaken as an auxiliary and indirect means to salvation.³
Sūtra 52.—He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), con-
cerned with showing that the devotees realize and intuit the Lord
differently. He reads "dṛṣṭiś ca" in place of "dṛṣṭaś ca". Hence
the sūtra: "And like the difference between prajñā and the other
(sort of knowledge) the perception (of the Lord too differs in the case
¹ Vide under V.K. 3.3.22. ² Vide V.K. 3.3.47.
³ G.B. 3.3.51. pp. 206–208, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3. 3. 49.
ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 687
of different devotees), that has been said". That is, in the Bṛha-
dāraṇyaka (Bṛh. 4.4.21 ¹), two sorts of knowledge, viz. vijñāna and
prajñā, are spoken of. The first is intellectual knowledge or mere
conception, the latter is intuitional knowledge or direct realization.
Now, just as there is a difference between intellect and intuition, so
there is a difference among the intuitions themselves. That is, different
devotees, following different paths, come to have different intuitions
or visions of the Lord. This has been declared in the Chāndogya
(Chānd. 3.14.1 ²).
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 49
"NOT EVEN ON ACCOUNT OF RESEMBLANCE, ON ACCOUNT OF
OBSERVATION, AS IN THE CASE OF DEATH, NOR, VERILY, (THERE
IS ANY) BECOMING THE WORLD."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Not even on account of their resemblance to the mental cup,
they are subordinate members of a sacrifice consisting in action,
since they are found to be of the form of meditation. In spite of the
resemblance of both fire and the person in the sun to death,—as stated
in the texts: "He, verily, is death who is the person within this orb"
(Śat. Br. 10.5.2. 3 ³), "Fire, verily, is death" (Bṛh. 3.2.10 ⁴),—the
difference (between them) remains; "nor verily" does fire (actually)
become the world in accordance with the passage: "The world, O
Gautama, is a fire" (Chānd. 5.4.1 ⁵).
Vedānta-kaustubha
(The author) condemns the statement made above, viz. that like
the mental (cup), the fires piled up by the mind and so on too are
subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in action.

¹ Vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta.
² G.B. 3.3. 52, p. 209, Chap. 3. "Yathā kratu asmin loke puruṣo bhavati
tathetaḥ pretya bhavati."
³ P. 793, line 5. Also repeated in various places of the same chapter.
Vide p. 794, lines 14-15; p. 795, lines 19-20, etc. Ś, R, Bb, Śk.
⁴ Ś. ⁵ Ś, Bh.

[SŪ. 3 3. 49.
688 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 20 ]
"Even on account of the resemblance," in point of being mental,
of the fires piled up by the mind and the rest to the mental cup,—
mentioned in the text: "With this (earth) as the jug, with the sea
as the juice, I take the cup, offered to Prajāpati, for you",—they are
not to be taken as the subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in
action. Why? Because we find from Scripture and the rest ¹ that
they are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation.
The sense is that a minor resemblance does not invalidate a major
difference.
With regard to this, (the author) states a parallel instance:
'As in the case of death". Just as, though fire and the person within
the sun resemble each other in point of being denoted by the same
word 'death' in the texts "He, verily, is death who is the person
within this orb" (Śat. Br. 10.5.2, 3), "The fire, verily, is death" (Bṛh
3 2.10), they are still different from each other; or just as, in accordance
with the text: "This world, O Gautama, is the fire" (Chānd 5.4 1),
the world does not (actually) become the fire,—so though the fires
piled up by the mind and so on and the mental cup resemble each
other in point of being mental, they still remain mutually different.
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different. The prima facie objectors say that
since the power of the actual fire is transferred to the mental fires
(Śat. Br. 10 5.3, 11), the latter must be actual brick-built fires like
the former. The answer is: "Not even on account of resemblance
(i.e. transference) (an identity) between them results), for (it is)
found (that there is transference even when there is no identity),
as in the case of death, for (there is) no attaining the world (of death
by the person in the sun)". That is, the mere transference of the
property of one thing to another is by no means an indication of an
actual identity between them, for it is found that sometimes such a
transference is based on a single point of similarity. E.g. the person
within the orb of the sun is said to be death (Śat. Br. 10.5.2, 3), but
there is only one point of resemblance between them, viz. destructive

¹ See above V.K. 3 3.47.

[sū. 3. 3. 50.
ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 689
power, and no resemblance in other points. The person within the
sun, e.g., does not occupy the world of death.¹
Baladeva
This is sūtra 53 in his commentary. Interpretation absolutely
different. The prima facie objector points out that if the vision of
the Lord be the cause of salvation ², then when the Lord descends on
earth as an incarnation, viz. Rāma and so on, everyone who sees Him
must become freed immediately. The answer is: “Even on account
of the common perception (of the Lord as an incarnation, there is no
universal release), like death (which is) not (the cause) of salvation,
but) the attainment of (other particular) worlds”. That is, death
does not necessarily lead to release, but more often to other worlds
like heaven and so on. Similarly, all visions of the Lord are not the
cause of release, but the vision of the Lord on earth as an incarnation
leads to heavenly regions alone.³
CORRECT CONCLUSION (end)
SŪTRA 50
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF WHAT IS SUBSEQUENT, THE BEING OF THIS
KIND OF THE WORD (IS ESTABLISHED), THERE IS CONNECTION WITH
(ACTION), ON THE OTHER HAND, ON ACCOUNT OF MAJORITY.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
On account also of the immediately following (section), viz.:
“This world, verily, is piled up by the fire” (Śat. Br. 10.5.4, 1⁴),
this text, referring to the fires piled up by the mind and so on, is of
such a kind. “On account of the majority,” i.e. numerosity, of the
details of (actual) fire which are to be accepted in the fires piled up
by the mind and so on, there is the “connection” (of these mental
fires) in the very vicinity of a fire built up by action.
¹ Śrī. B. 3.3.49, p 331, Part 2; Śk. B. 3.3.49, p. 369, Parts 10 and 11.
² Vide G.B. 3.3.49 above
³ P. 798, line 17. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. Correct quotation: “Agniś cita”, in
which case the quotation would mean. “This world, verily, is the piled up fire.”
⁴ Correct quotation “Agniś Cita”, meaning “piled up fire”, and not
“Agni-Cita”.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 50.
690 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 20.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
"On account of what is subsequent" to the section concerned
with the fires piled up by the mind and so on, viz. the section concerned
with world which is filled, beginning "This world, verily, is piled up by
the fire (Śat. Br. 10 5 4, 1), and on account of the preceding section,—
implied by the term "and" (in the sūtra)—, beginning. "This orb
that shines" (Sat. Br. 10 5 2, 1), the "text", i.e. the section coming
between them, is "of that kind", i.e. concerned with an injunction
about meditation. That is, on account of its association with a pre-
ceding and a subsequent sections which have meditation for their
primary topic, here too there is the primacy of meditation,—that is
what it comes to.
To this objection, viz. If in this section, there be the primacy
of meditation, then what is the sense in beginning with action?—
(the author) replies "On account of majority". That is, "on account
of the majority" or numerosity of the details of the fire built up by
action to be accomplished (mentally) in the case of the fires which
are the subsidiary parts of meditation, there is the "connection",
i.e. setting forth, of the fires, the subsidiary parts of meditation,
after the fires which are subsidiary parts of action. Hence it is
established that the fires piled up by the mind and the rest are
subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation.
Here ends the section entitled "The majority of indicatory
marks" (20).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 54 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an
adhikaraṇa by itself concerned with an entirely different topic, viz.
the grace of the Lord. The prima facie view is that it cannot be said
that the direct vision of the Lord alone, attainable through devotion 1,
in the cause of salvation, for a text in the Mundaka (Muṇḍ. 3.2 3 2)
shows that the vision of the Lord depends on the grace of the Lord.
1 Vide G.B. 3.3.49 above.
2 "Nāyamātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ", etc.

[sū. 3. 3. 51.
ADH. 21 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 691
The answer is: “On account of what follows (i e. the immediately
following text ¹), the being of that kind of the word (is established),
(there is) the mention (of grace in the passage), on the other hand,
on account of preponderance (i.e. because the grace of the Lord is
the most predominating factor in attaining salvation)”. That is,
the Muṇḍaka-text does imply that devotion is the cause of a direct
vision of the Lord, and the latter a cause of emancipation, for the
grace or choice by the Lord is not arbitrary, but is determined by the
devotion of men ²
Adhikaraṇa 21: The section entitled “Exist-
ence in the body”. (Sūtras 51-52)
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 51)
SŪTRA 51
“SOME (HOLD THAT THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS TO BE MEDITATED
ON IN ITS STATE OF BONDAGE), ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXISTENCE
(OF SUCH A SOUL) IN THE BODY.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
At the time of meditation, the individual soul is to be meditated
on in its state of bondage, on account of the existence of such a soul
alone “in the body”—so “some” (think).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Immediately above, an investigation has been undertaken into
the fires piled up by the mind and so on as forming subsidiary parts
of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Now, the question is being
considered, viz. in what form is the individual soul too, entitled to
its fruit, to be sought for at the time of meditation ?
The doubt is as to whether at the time of meditation, the individual
soul is to be conceived of simply in its state of bondage,—i.e. in the
form of a knower, a doer, an enjoyer and the rest,—or in its state of
1 “Nāyamātmā vala-hīnena labhyah”, etc.
2 G.B. 3.3.54, pp. 214 ff., Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 51.
692 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 21.]
salvation, i.e. in its real nature, characterized by the manifested
attributes of freedom from sins and the rest. With regard to it "some"
think that it is to be conceived of in its state of bondage alone, i e.
in the form of a knower and the rest. Why? On account of the non-
existence "in the body", at that time, "of the soul" in its state of
salvation, i.e. in its real nature as characterized by freedom from sins
and so on. Or else, (an alternative explanation:) on account of the
existence of such a soul alone, i.e. of the soul in its state of bondage. ¹
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 53 in the commentary of Śaṃkara and 52 in that of
Bhāskara. They take this adhikaraṇa to be concerned with a different
problem, viz the relation between the soul and the body. This sūtra
sets forth the opponent's view, viz. the view of the Cārvākas, that the
soul is nothing but the body, since consciousness is found only when
the body is present, and not found when it is absent. Hence, the
sūtra: "Some (maintain the non-difference) of the soul (from the
body), on account of the existence (of consciousness) if there be
the body".²
Baladeva
This is sūtra 55 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an
adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an entirely different topic, viz.
the worship of the Lord in the different parts of the body. Hence
the sūtra: "Some (recommend the worship) of the soul (viz the
Lord) in the body, on account of the existence (of the Lord there)".
That is, the Lord is to be worshipped in the different parts of the body,
such as, the stomach, the heart, the top of the head and so on, since
He exists in these places also and gives salvation to the devotee.³
¹ Note that while Nimbārka reads only "bhāvāt", Śrīnivāsa reads both
"abhāvāt" and "bhābāt".
² Ś.B. 3.3.53, pp. 838–840; Bh. B. 3.3.52 (written as 3.3.53), pp. 195-196.
³ G.B. 3.3.55, pp. 218-219, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 52.
ADH. 21 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 693
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 52)
SŪTRA 52
“BUT (THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS TO BE MEDITATED ON IN ITS
STATE OF RELEASE) DIFFERENT (FROM ITS STATE OF BONDAGE,
AND) NOT (IN ITS STATE OF BONDAGE), BECAUSE OF BECOMING OF
THAT NATURE, AS IN THE CASE OF REALIZATION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
¹At the time of meditation, the individual soul is to be conceived
of in its freed state, different from its state of bondage,—since during
release, it is to become of that very form, just as one attains the
Highest Self in accordance with meditation.
Vedānta-kaustubha
With regard to it, we reply:
The word “but” implies emphasis. The individual soul is not
to be conceived of simply in its state of bondage, i.e. simply in its
form of a knower, a doer and so on. On the contrary, it is the real
nature of the soul, in its state of release, possessed of the manifested
attributes of freedom from sins and so on, and possessed of the attri-
butes of being a knower and so on, which is “different” from its
nature in its state of bondage, that is to be conceived of at the time
of meditation. Why? “Because of becoming of that nature,”
i.e. because during the state of release, the soul becomes “of that
nature”, i.e. of the nature of its real form, conceived, in accordance
with Scripture, at the time of meditation,² “As in the case of realiza-
tion”. That is, just as there is the realization of Brahman in accord-
ance with meditation, so is the case here, as declared by the scriptural
texts: “As the purpose of man is in this world, so will he be on depart-
ing” (Chānd. 3.14.1). “Howsoever he meditates on him, such alone
he becomes” (Śat. Br. 10.5.2, 20 ³). Hence it is established that during
¹ The C.S.S. ed. adds “Tan na”—“that is not so”, p. 68.
² I.e. the form which is meditated on during bondage is the form which is
attained later on during salvation.
³ P. 725, line 13. Cf. a very similar passage in Mudg. 3, p. 384, lines 8-9.

694 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 3. 52.
ADH. 21.]
the state of realization, the individual soul is to be conceived of in
its state of release.
Here ends the section entitled “Existence in the body” (21).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 54 in the commentary of Śaṃkara, sūtra 53 in that
of Bhāskara. Here they answer the Cārvāka view that the soul is
identical with the body. They interpret the sūtra in the same way,
only Śaṃkara reads: “tad-bhāvābhāvitvāt”, instead of “tad-bhāva-
bhāvitvāt”. Thus, according to him, the sūtra means: “(The soul
is) different (from the body), not (identical) because the existence
(of consciousness) does not depend on the existence of that (viz. the
body), as in the case of perception”. That is, consciousness is not a
quality of the body, since even where the body is present, there may
be no consciousness, e.g. in the case of a dead body. Hence just as
perception is other than the object perceived, so consciousness is
other than the conscious body.¹
According to Bhāskara, the sūtra means : “(The soul is) different
(from the body) not (identical) because the existence of (the qualities
of the body) depend on the existence of that (viz. the body), as in
the case of perception”. That is, consciousness cannot be an attribute
of the body, since an attribute of the body exists when the body
exists. But consciousness does not exist always when the body
does, e.g. in a dead body.² Hence the two explanations are identical
in spite of the difference of reading. Bhāskara's reading is prefer-
able.
Rāmānuja
Interpretation same, only the phrase “upalabdhivat” interpreted
differently, viz. just as the realization of Brahman, enjoined in Scrip-
ture, means the realization of His real form, so exactly, self-realization
too means the realization of the real form of the self.³
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
¹ Ś.B. 3.3.54, p. 840.
² Bh. B. 3.3.53 (written as 3 3.54), p. 196.
³ Śrī. B. 3.3.52, p. 337, vol. 2.

[sū. 3. 3. 53
ADH. 22.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 695
Baladeva
This is sūtra 56 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa
here (three sūtras), concerned with an absolutely different topic, viz.
different kinds of realizations in accordance with the different kinds
of devotion. Hence the sūtra: “(During release, there is) no (percep-
tion of the Lord as possessed of the attributes) other (than those
with which He was meditated upon in this life), on account of the
existence (of the Lord) as having that nature (i e. attributes) (during
release), as in the case of knowledge”. That is, when a man, conceiv-
ing a thing in a particular form, meditates on it as such, he obtains
that thing in that particular form. Similarly, the devotees who
meditates on the Lord as the Sweet, realizes Him as such during
release; and who meditates on Him as the Majestic, realizes Him as
such.¹
Adhikaraṇa 22: The section entitled “Connected
with the subsidiary parts”. (Sūtras 53-54)
SŪTRA 53
“BUT (THE MEDITATIONS) CONNECTED WITH THE SUBSIDIARY
PARTS, (ARE) NOT (RESTRICTED) TO (PARTICULAR) BRANCHES, FOR
(THEY BELONG) TO EACH VEDA.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The meditations connected with the subsidiary parts of (sacrifices)
like the udgītha, enjoined in the passage: “Let one meditate on this
syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1 ²) and so on, do not rest
upon (their own) branches ³, but are connected with “each Veda”,
i.e. with all the branches ⁴, on account of the non-specification of the
scriptural text about the udgītha.
¹ G.B. 3.3.56, p. 221, Chap. 3.
² Ś, R, Bh.
³ C.S.S. ed. reads “Sva-śākhāsu”, p. 68.
⁴ C.S.S. ed. reads “Kutaḥ”. Op cit.

696 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 53,
ADH. 22.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been pointed out above that at the time of meditation, the
particular form (which the individual soul has) at that time should
be disregarded, and (its) special form, as characterized by the mani-
fested (attributes) of freedom from sins and so on, is to be conceived
of. Similarly, here too, since a particular form can accomplish the
end, the meditations may rest upon the particular forms of the ud-
gītha and the rest, i.e. be based on them, in whatever special forms
these udgītha and the rest are mentioned in whatever particular
branches with whatever special accents,—this doubt (the author)
dispels now by stating his own view.
The doubt is as to whether the meditations, founded on the sub-
sidiary parts of sacrificial acts like the udgītha and the rest, such as:
"Let one meditate on this syllable 'Om' as the udgītha" (Chānd,
1.1.1), "Let one meditate on the five-fold sāman in the worlds'.
(Chānd. 2.1.1), " 'Hymn, hymn', people say. The hymn is, forsooth,
the earth" (Ait. Ār. 2.1.2 1), "This world, verily, is the piled up fire"
(Śat. Br. 10.5.4, 1 2) and so on, enjoined in all the branches of all the
Vedas, are based on those particular forms of the udgītha and the
rest in which they are read in those particular branches in those special
accents, or are connected with the udgītha and the rest contained in
all the branches. Here the prima facie view is that on account of
proximity, they are based on those particular forms of the udgītha
and the rest in which these udgītha and the rest are read in those
particular branches in those special accents, but are not connected
with the udgītha and the rest presented in a different branch.
With regard to this, (the author) states the correct conclusion:
"Connected with the subsidiary parts". The word "but" is meant
for rejecting the prima facie view. Those meditations, "connected
with the subsidiary parts", i.e. founded on the subordinate members
of sacrifices, do not rest on the udgītha and the rest belonging to their
own branches, but are connected with "each Veda", i.e. with the
udgīthas and the rest represented in all the branches. The word "for"
implies the reason, i.e. because in spite of the difference of the forms
of the udgītha and the rest resulting from the difference of accents
and so on, the scriptural text about the udgītha, viz "Let one meditate
1 P. 101.
2 P. 798, line 17.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 54.
ADH 22.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 697
on the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.1.1) and so on, lays down no specification,
and thereby proximity is set aside
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 57 in his commentary. Here he illustrates the
doctrine that the Lord is realized differently by different devotees in
accordance with the kind of devotion with which they worship Him
Hence the sūtra: "But (the priests) are restricted to (particular) parts
(of the sacrifice), (but are not appointed) to (all the) branches (of it),
because (the parts are regulated) according to each Veda". That is,
when a man is about to perform a sacrifice, he chooses several priests,
all of whom are able to perform all the parts of it, and appoints them
to certain offices And, the priests, so appointed by their master,
must perform only the portions allotted to them, and not the others,
and receive the fee accordingly. Similarly, it is the will of the Lord
which determines which particular path of devotion a soul should
follow, 1.e. whether they should meditate on Him as the Sweet, or as
the Majestic,—and realize Him accordingly.¹
SŪTRA 54
"OR, AS IN THE CASE OF THE SACRED FORMULÆ AND THE LIKE,
(THERE IS) NO CONTRADICTION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"As in the case of the sacred formulæ" like: "Thou art a cock"
(M. Saṃ. 1.1.6 ²), or as in the case of preliminary offerings, there is
"no contradiction" in applying meditations mentioned in one place
to other places.
Vedānta-kaustubha
There is "no contradiction" in connecting meditations, set
forth in one place, with the udgītha and the rest, set forth else-
where, "as in the case of the sacred formulæ and the like." The
G.B. 3.3.57, pp. 221-222, Chap 3. ² P. 6, line 14. Ś, Bh.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 55.
698 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 23.]
word "or" means 'and,' i.e. and just as the sacred formula which
accompanies the taking of the stone for grinding the rice, viz. "Thou
art a cock" (M. Saṃ. 1 1.6), mentioned in one place, is applicable in
other places as well, so is the case here. By the words "and the like",
it is meant that just as the preliminary offerings, mentioned in one
place, are applicable in other places also (so is the case here).
Hence, it is established that the meditations founded on the sub-
ordinate members (of sacrifices) like the udgītha and the rest, mentioned
in one place, are connected with the udgītha and the rest, mentioned
elsewhere.
Here ends the section entitled "Connected with the
subsidiary parts" (22).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 58 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic,
viz. the different modes of worshipping the Lord, by giving a second
illustration, thus: "Or, as in the case of the sacred formulæ and the
rest, (there is) no contradiction", that is, just as some formulæ are
employed in many ceremonies,—some in two, some in one only,—
so some men worship the Lord in several ways, i.e. with mixed
sentiments or devotion, some only in one.¹
Adhikaraṇa 23: The section entitled "The
superiority of the plentitude". (Sūtra 55)
SŪTRA 55
"(THERE IS) SUPERIORITY OF THE PLENTITUDE, AS IN THE CASE
OF A SACRIFICE, FOR THUS (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
With regard to the Vaiśvānara-vidyā ², the meditation on the
aggregate is commended, just as there is a single performance of the
¹ G.B. 3.3.58, pp. 222-223, Chap. 3.
² See under Br. Sū. 3.3.31.

[sū. 3. 3. 55.
· ADH 23.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 699
Paurṇa-māsa sacrifice and the rest together with the subsidiary parts.
Thus, the scriptural text : ‘“Your head would have fallen off if you
had not come to me”’ (Chānd. 5.12.2 ¹), designating the fault involved
in the meditation on each limb, shows the excellence of the meditation
on the aggregate.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been pointed out above that in accordance with scriptural
statements, meditations mentioned in one place are applicable to
other places. Why should we not, then, meditate on the parts in the
Vaiśvānara-vidyā, in accordance with scriptural statement ?—To this
objection (the author) replies.
In the Vaiśvānara-vidyā, from the questions and answers of
the six sages, viz. Prācīnaśāla and the rest and king Kekaya, we
learn of a meditation on the Vaiśvānara (or the Universal Soul) in its
separate aspect, viz. the heavenly world, the sun, the wind, the ether,
the earth,—as well as in its aggregative aspect. Here the doubt is,
viz. whether one should meditate on the separate parts or on the
aggregate. On the suggestion that in accordance with the scriptural
texts laying down an injunction regarding the meditation on the
separate parts, one should meditate on the separate parts,—
We reply: There is “superiority”, i.e. excellence, “of the plenti-
tude,” i.e. of the meditation on the aggregate alone, and not of the
meditations on the separate parts,—since the object to be meditated
on being Vaiśvānara alone, having (different) limbs like the heaven
as its head and so on, the beginning and the end form a connected
whole. “As in the case of a sacrifice.” That is, just as the single
performance of sacrifices like Paurṇa-māsa and the rest in their
entirety is intended to be designated, but not of the separate parts
like the preliminary offerings and the rest, so is the case here also.
“For,” the scriptural text, designating the fault involved in the medita-
tion on the separate parts, viz. : ‘“Your head would have fallen off had
you not come to me”’ (Chānd. 5.12.2), ‘“You would have become
blind had you not come to me”’ (Chānd. 5.13.2) and so on, “shows”
“thus”, i.e. that the meditation on the aggregate alone is to be
undertaken and not meditation on the separate parts.
It is not to be said also that (on the above view) the texts
enjoining meditating on the separate parts will become meaningless,
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
15

[SŪ. 3. 3. 55.
700 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 23.]
viz. those beginning with the question of the king: " 'Auhamanyava,
whom do you worship as the soul?' 'The heaven alone, O reverend
king.' He said: 'The brightly shining one whom you worship as the
soul is verily the universal soul' " (Chānd 5.12.1 ¹) and so on,—since
as it is the meditation on the aggregate which is to be enjoined through
the explanatory reiterations of the meditations on the separate parts,
those texts are concerned with explanatory reiterations only. More-
over, having rejected the meditation on the separate parts, Scripture
mentions the result of the meditation on the aggregate only thus:
"He eats food in all the worlds, in all beings, in all selves" (Chānd.
5 18.1). Hence, it is established that the meditation on the aggregate
alone is to be undertaken
Here ends the section entitled "The superiority of the
plentitude" (23)
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 59 in his commentary He takes it as forming an
adhikarana by itself, concerned with an altogether different topic,
viz. the meditation on the Lord as possessed of the attribute of plurality
or manifoldness. Hence the sūtra: "On account of the pre-eminence
of (the attribute of) muchness, (the Lord is to be meditated on as
possessed of this attribute), as in the case of a sacrifice, for thus
(Scripture, i.e. Chānd. 7.2.3, 1) shows". That is, just as a sacrifice
is a sacrifice even when the sacrificer first begins it, and remains a
sacrifice even when he has finished it, and just as this conception of the
sacrifice is the most essential element involved in all sacrifices, so the
manifoldness of the Lord, i.e. His appearing in many forms, is the most
essential of all His attributes, and therefore must be included in all
meditations on Him.²
¹ Quotation given in the text is all wrong.
² G.B. 3.3.59, pp. 224-225, Chap. 3.
15B