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

[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

[sū. 3. 3. 56.
ADH. 24.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 701
Adhikarana 24: The section entitled "Differ-
ence of words". (Sūtra 56)
SŪTRA 56
"(THE VIDYĀS ARE) DIVERSE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE
OF WORDS AND SO ON."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is diversity among the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest. Why?
"On account of the difference of words and so on" regarding them.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now, by showing ¹ that in spite of Brahman, the object to be
meditated on, being one and the same, there are diverse meditations
as there are different texts about them and so on, (the author) is after
that removing the following doubt: It has been pointed out imme-
diately above that in spite of there being injunctive texts regarding
the meditations on the separate parts, the meditation on the Whole is
the best of all, as the object meditated on is everywhere the same.
Similarly, in spite of there being injunctive texts regarding different
kinds of meditations on Brahman, such as the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and
the rest, all these meditations must be one and the same, as the object
meditated on is everywhere the same (viz. Brahman).
The doubt is as to whether all the meditations on Brahman
which result in final emancipation, consisting in the attainment of
Brahman, viz. the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā ², the Bhūma-vidyā ³, the Sad-
vidyā ⁴, the Dahara-vidyā ⁵, the Upakosala-vidyā ⁶, the Vaiśvānara-
vidyā ⁷, the Ānandamaya-vidyā ⁸, the Akṣara-vidyā ⁹, and so on,
¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason. ² Vide Br. Sū. 3.3 31.
³ Bhūma-vidyā or the doctrine of the Plenty taught by Sanatkumāra
to Nārada. Vide Chānd. 7 13. Vide also V.K. 1.3.8.
⁴ Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.35. ⁵ Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.31.
⁶ Op. cit. ⁷ Op. cit.
⁸ Ānandamaya-vidyā or the doctrine of the Self consisting of bliss. Vide
Tait. 2.
⁹ Akṣara-vidyā or the doctrine of the Imperishable taught to Gārgī by
Yājñavalkya. Vide Bṛh. 3.8. Vide also V.K. 3.3.33.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 56.
702 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 24.]
as well as the Prāṇa-vidyā ¹ and the rest which have a special
object and a special result, are to be undertaken collectively or
separately. The prima facie view is that though there are injunctions
with regard to each of the meditations, yet as the object to be
meditated on is everywhere the same, they are to be undertaken
collectively.
With regard to it, we reply: "Diverse". The meditations are
diverse. Why? "On account of the difference of words and so on,"
i.e. as there are different texts about them like: 'Knows', 'Let one
meditate', 'Let one form a resolution' (Chānd. 3.14.1), "But let one
desire to enquire into the Plenty" (Chānd. 7.2.3, 1), "Let one meditate
on Truth" (Bṛh 4.1.4) and so on. The sense is this. Though the object
to be meditated on is the same, yet these meditations are not exactly
identical, since the object to be meditated on has different forms,
as (variously) qualified by the special attributes mentioned in the texts
designating those special meditations. By the words "and so on"
other grounds, besides texts, for taking sacrificial acts as different,
as demonstrated in the section concerned with that topic ², viz.
repetition, number, name, attribute and context, are to be understood.
These establish that the meditations are different here too.
Here ends the section entitled "Difference of words" (24).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 60 in his commentary. He too takes it to be forming
an adhikaraṇa by itself, but interprets it in a sectarian manner thus:
"(The meditations on the different forms of the Lord are) different,
on account of the difference of words and so on. That is, the medita-
tion on Kṛṣṇa, e.g., is different from the meditation on Nṛsiṁha,
because the two words 'Kṛṣṇa' and 'Nṛsiṁha' are different, their
forms are different and their mantras too are different.³
¹ Prāṇa-vidyā or the doctrine of the primacy of the vital-breath. Vide
Bṛh. 6.1; Praśna 2; Kauṣ. 3. Vide also V.K. 3.3.10.
² Vide Pū. Mī. Sū. 2.2.1 ff. ³ G.B. 3.3.60, p. 225, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3 3. 57
ADH. 25.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 703
Adhikaraṇa 25: The section entitled “Option”.
(Sūtras 57-58)
SŪTRA 57
“(THERE IS) OPTION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DISTINCTION OF
THE RESULT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
It has been shown that the various meditations (on Brahman) are
not identical but different from one another. There is “option” of
performance with regard to them, “on account of the non-distinction
of result”.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been stated above that the meditations are ‘diverse’.
Now, the mode of performing them, having the attainment of Brahman
as their result, is being considered.
The doubt is as to whether these Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, Bhūma-vidyā,
Sad-vidyā and the rest, which result in the attainment of Brahman,
are to be undertaken collectively or optionally. On the suggestion
that like the Agni-hotra, Daśa-pūrṇa-māsa and the rest, they are to
be undertaken collectively,—
(The author) says: “Option”, i.e. any one alone is to be under-
taken. Why? “On account of the non-distinction of the result,”
i.e. because all the meditations on Brahman lead, without distinction,
to the attainment of His nature. That is to say, as our purpose is
served through one alone, it is not necessary for us to perform all the
rest. Compare the scriptural and Smṛti texts like: “The knower of
Brahman attains the highest” (Tait. 2.1), ‘“My devotees go to me
even”’ (Gītā 7.23) and so on.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 61 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an
adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with showing that the meditations
on the different forms of the Lord, such as Kṛṣṇa, Rāma and so on,

704 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 58.
ADH. 25.]
are optional, since any one of them leads to release. Hence, the
devotee should choose one form and stick to it.¹
SŪTRA 58
“BUT (THE MEDITATIONS BRINGING ABOUT) OBJECTS OF DESIRE
MAY BE COMBINED TOGETHER OR NOT AT WILL, ON ACCOUNT OF
THE ABSENCE OF THE FORMER REASON.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is no restriction with regard to the performance of (medita-
tions) having results other than the attainment of Brahman, “on
account of the absence of the former reason”, which involves such a
restriction.
Vedānta-kaustubha
This aphorism supplies a counter-instance with a view to confirm-
ing the stated view.
“But the (meditations leading to) objects of desire,” i.e. the
symbolic meditations having results other than the attainment of
Brahman, set forth in the texts: “Verily, he who meditates on Name
as Brahman comes to have freedom of movement as far as Name goes”
(Chānd. 7.1.5), “He who knows this wind thus as the child of the quar-
ters, mourns not for a son” (Chānd. 3.15.2) and so on, “may be com-
bined together or not at will”, like the sacrificial acts which bring about
heaven and the rest as results. Why ? “On account of the absence of
the former reason,” i.e. on account of their not having the same result.
Hence it is established that just as (the meditations) which have
results other than the attainment of Brahman are to be undertaken
at one’s will, without any restriction, by those who aim at those
results, so, contrarily to them, (the meditations) which have the
attainment of Brahman as their result are to be undertaken optionally
by one who desires for salvation, as all these meditations produce
the very same result.
Here ends the section entitled “Option” (25).
¹ G.B. 3.3.61, p. 226, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3. 3. 59.
ADH. 26.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 705
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 61 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an
adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation like Nimbārka's.
Adhikarana 26: The section entitled "Of the
same nature as the bases".¹ (Sūtras 59–64)
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtras 59–62)
SŪTRA 59
"(THE MEDITATIONS BASED) ON THE SUBSIDIARY PARTS (OF
SACRIFICES) ARE OF THE SAME NATURE AS THEIR BASES."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
(The author) raises an objection, viz. On account of numerous
indicatory marks, there is a regular inclusion in sacrifices of the
meditations based on their subsidiary parts like the udgītha and the,
rest.
The meditations based on the udgītha and the rest are of the
nature of subsidiary parts like the udgītha.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been pointed out that the meditations aiming at objects
of desire are to be practised at will. Now, although it has been
pointed out under the aphorism: "Non-restriction with regard to
the specification of that" (Br. Sū. 3.3.41) that those meditations also
which are based on the subsidiary parts of sacrifices may be included
in those sacrifices at will,—yet with a view to confirming it strongly,
(the author) raises an objection, viz. that as these (meditations on the
subsidiary parts of sacrifices) subserve those sacrifices, as the subsidiary
parts themselves do, they are to be included in sacrifices regularly.
On the doubt, viz. whether the meditations which are based on
the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, such as the udgītha and the
¹ Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.41, where the topic has already been treated.