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

[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.

[sū. 3. 3. 60.
706 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 26 ]
rest, as set forth in the passages. “Let one meditate on the syllable
‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1 1) and so on, are to be included
regularly in the sacrificial acts like the subsidiary parts themselves,
or at will—(the prima facie objector says ) Regularly like the sub-
sidiary parts themselves So he says: “In the subsidiary parts”
and so on. That is, with regard to the sacrificial acts, the meditations
based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts are “of the same
nature as their bases”. The means, just as the subsidiary parts of
sacrificial acts, like the udgītha and the rest, are subsidiary parts,
so are the meditations based on them.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 63 in his commentary. He too begins an adhikaraṇa
here (continuing up to the end of the chapter), but concerned with an
altogether different topic, viz. the meditation on the various limbs
of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: “In the limbs (of the Lord), (the
qualities or gestures), appropriate to them (are to be meditated on)”.
That is, one should meditate on the eyes of the Lord benevolent, the
face as smiling and so on”.¹
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued)
SŪTRA 60
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF TEACHING.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And on account of the teaching, viz. “Let one meditate on the
udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1²), there is a regular inclusion.
Vedānta-kaustubha
And as the passage teaches that these meditations are based on
the udgītha: “Let one meditate on the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1), there
is a regular inclusion of the meditation in sacrificial works.
¹ G.B. 3.3.63, p. 230, Chap. 3. ² R, Sk

[SŪ. 3. 3 61.
ADH. 26 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 707
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 64 in his commentary. He reads “Śiṣṭaiś Ca”
instead of “Śiṣṭeś Ca”. He continues here the topic of the meditation
on the limbs of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: “And (such a meditation
is performed) by those who are taught”.¹
———
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued)
SŪTRA 61
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF COMBINATION”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And on account of the performance together of the praṇava
and the udgītha, in accordance with the text: ‘From the seat of the
Hotṛ² simply, he sets right the wrong utterances of the udgītha”
(Chānd. 1.5.5³).
Vedānta-kaustubha
“And on account of the combination,” i.e. performance together,
of the praṇava, mentioned in the Ṛg-veda, and udgītha, mentioned
in the Sāma-veda, in accordance with the text: “From the seat of
the Hotṛ simply, he sets right the wrong utterances of the udgītha”
(Chānd. 1.5.5), it is known that there is a regular inclusion of meditation
in sacrificial acts. Owing to the potency of the combination of the
praṇava and the udgītha, the priest who chants the udgītha sets
right the ‘bad udgītha’, i.e. that udgītha which, though chanted by
himself, has been chanted wrongly owing to the lack of his proper
knowledge of accents and so on, ‘from the seat of the Hotṛ’, i.e. by
means of the work of the Hotṛ, viz. the act of reciting,—this is the
meaning of the scriptural text.
¹ G.B. 3.3.64, p. 230, Chap. 3.
² One of the four kinds of officiating priests who recites the Ṛgveda.
³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 62.
708 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 26.]
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 65 in his commentary. It may be objected that
a Chāndogya text (Chānd. 1.6.7) mentions only the lotus-like eyes of
the Lord, but not His other limbs. Hence this text must be defective.
The answer is: "(There is) no (discrepancy in this text) on account
of comprehensiveness". The word "na" (=no) is to be supplied
from sūtra 3.3.67. The sense is that the description of the eyes
only must be supposed to involve the description of other members
of the body of the Lord, and hence the description is not defective.¹
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded)
SŪTRA 62
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL TEXT ABOUT THE COMMON-
NESS OF ATTRIBUTES."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"And on account of the scriptural text about the commonness of
attribute," viz. "Thereby this triad . . . . ² exists" (Chānd. 1.1.9 ³).
Vedānta-kaustubha
And on account of the scriptural mention of the commonness of
"attribute", i.e. of the Om-kāra, the basis of meditation, in all sacri-
ficial works, thus: "Thereby this triad . . . . . exists" (Chānd. 1.1.9).
The meaning is that 'thereby', i.e. by the Om-kāra, the basis of medita-
tion, 'the triad exists', i.e. the works mentioned in the three Vedas
proceed.⁴ The sense is that those meditations too which are based on
¹ G.B. 3.3.65, p. 231, Chap. 3.
² Correct quotation: "Tenāyaṁ trayī vidyā vartate".
³ Ś, R, Śk.
⁴ The text continues: "With 'Om' the Adhvaryyu gives orders, with 'Om'
the Hotṛ recites, with 'Om' the Udgātṛ sings".

[sū. 3. 3. 63.
ADH. 26.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 709
the subsidiary parts are to be regularly included in those sacrifices,
just like the subsidiary parts themselves.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 66 in his commentary. He continues here the topic
of the meditation on the limbs of the Lord. He takes this to be
setting forth a prima facie view Hence the sūtra: “(Every limb of
the Lord must be meditated on as possessed of the powers or attributes
of all the rest), on account of a scriptural text about the commonness
of attributes.” That is, a text in the Bhagavad-gītā, viz. “Everywhere
that has hands and feet” (Gītā 13.14), shows that every limb of the
Lord can discharge the function of every other limb. Hence every
member must be so meditated on.¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 63-64)
SŪTRA 63
“OR NOT, ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIPTURE NOT DECLARING (THEIR)
ACCOMPANYING (SACRIFICES).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is no fixed rule that the meditations on the subsidiary parts
of sacrifices are to be included always in those sacrifices, just like the
subsidiary parts themselves, since Scripture does not declare them
to be subsidiary parts of sacrifices.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now (the author) refutes it.
The statement that there is a regular inclusion, in sacrificial acts,
of the meditations based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts,

¹ G.B. 3.3.66, p. 231, Chap. 3.

710 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3 64.
ADH. 26.]
such as the udgītha, like those subsidiary parts themselves, is not
tenable. Why? "On account of Scripture not declaring (their)
accompanying " That is, Scripture declares that the subsidiary parts
of sacrifices should always accompany the sacrifices themselves.
Compare the text: "Having taken the graha ¹, having raised the
camas ², he should begin the stotra ³ (Tait. Sam. 3.1.2, 4 ⁴) But there
is no such declaration about the meditations (on the subsidiary parts).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 67 in his commentary Here he refutes the prima
facie view, mentioned in the previous sūtra, thus: "Or not, (i.e.
every limb of the Lord is to be meditated on as possessed of its peculiar
attributes only), because there is no scriptural text (to the effect that
it is to be meditated on) as accompanied by (the attributes of other
limbs)".⁵
CORRECT CONCLUSION (end)
SŪTRA 64
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIPTURAL TEXT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
This is so also because the scriptural text: "Verily, the
Brāhmaṇa priest who knows (or meditates) thus protects the sacrifice,
the sacrificer, and all officiating priests" (Chānd. 4.7.10 ⁶) shows that
¹ A graha is a vessel used for taking out a portion of fluid from a larger
vessel, especially a vessel used for taking up the soma-juice
² A camasa is a vessel used at sacrifices for drinking the soma-juice.
³ A hymn of praise.
⁴ P. 247, lines 14-15.
⁵ G.B. 3.3.67, p. 232, Chap. 3.
⁶ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 3 64.
ADH. 26.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 711
there is no fixed rule that these meditations are to be regularly
included (in the sacrifices)
Here ends the third section of the third quarter of the Vedānta-
pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā texts,
by the reverend Nimbārka.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Further, as declared by Scripture itself, there is indeed no fixed
rule that the meditations based on the subsidiary parts of sacrifices
are to be regularly included in those sacrifices The scriptural text:
"Verily, the Brāhmaṇa priest who knows (or meditates) thus protects
the sacrifice, the sacrificer and all officiating priests" (Chānd. 4.7.10),
designating the protecting of all sacrifices, sacrificers and the rest
of the knowers by the Brāhmaṇa priest, shows that there is no fixed
rule about the regular inclusion of meditations.¹ Hence it is established
that there is no regular inclusion, in sacrificial acts, of the meditations
based on their subsidiary parts, like the udgītha and the rest, but
only optional inclusion, like the milking-vessel.²
Here ends the section entitled "Of the same nature as the
bases" (26).
Here ends the third section of the third quarter of the holy
Vedānta-kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, com-
posed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet
of the reverend Nimbārka, the founder and teacher of the sect of the
holy Sanatkumāra.
¹ For if meditation were included regularly in all sacrificial acts, then all
priests would have such a knowledge and so the text would not have
specially announced that a Brāhmaṇa priest who possesses such a knowledge
protects others.
² See under V.P. 3.3.41.

712 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 3. 64.
ADH. 26.]
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 68 in his commentary. "And because it is seen."
That is, it is more natural to suppose the eyes to see, the ears to hear
and so on than to suppose every other member. Hence the conclusion
is that every member of the body of the Lord is to be meditated on as
(endowed with its own attributes) ¹
Résumé
The third quarter of the third chapter contains.
(1) 64 sūtras and 26 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka;
(2) 66 sūtras and 36 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṁkara;
(3) 64 sūtras and 26 adhikaranas, according to Rāmānuja;
(4) 65 sūtras and 34 adhikaranas, according to Bhāskara;
(5) 64 sūtras and 36 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha;
(6) 68 sūtras and 34 adhikaranas, according to Baladeva.
Śaṁkara breaks each of the sūtras 35 and 46 in Nimbārka's
commentary into two separate sūtras.
Rāmānuja inverts the order of sūtras 31 and 32 in Nimbārka's
commentary.
Bhāskara breaks sūtra 46 in Nimbārka's commentary into two
separate sūtras.
Śrīkaṇṭha inverts the order of sūtras 29-30, and 31-32 in
Nimbārka's commentary
Baladeva breaks each of sūtras 3, 35, 46 and 48 in Nimbārka's
commentary into two separate sūtras.
¹ G.B. 3.3.68, p. 232, Chap. 3.

THIRD CHAPTER (Adhyāya)
FOURTH QUARTER (Pāda)
Adhikaraṇa 1: The section entitled "The end
of men". (Sūtras 1-20)
SŪTRA 1
"THE END OF MEN (ARISES) FROM THIS, ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIP-
TURAL STATEMENT, SO BĀDARĀYAṆA THINKS."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Brahman can be attained through knowledge ¹, "on account of the
scriptural statement", viz.: "The knower of Brahman attains the
highest" (Tait. 2.1 ²) "so" the reverend "Bādarāyaṇa" thinks.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the previous quarter, discussions about the non-difference of
meditations, the consequent combination or non-combination of
details and so on were undertaken. Now, in this quarter, the problem
as to whether the end of men arises from knowledge or from action,
its subsidiary part, and so on is being discussed.
On the doubt, viz. whether the end of men results from knowledge
or from action, a subsidiary part of meditation, first (the author)
begins with the correct conclusion. The end, i.e. the purpose, of men,
viz. the attainment of Brahman, arises "from this", i.e. from know-
ledge. Why? "On account of scriptural statement," i.e. on account
of scriptural statements like: "The knower of the self crosses
over grief" (Chānd. 7.1.3), "Verily, he who knows the Supreme
Brahman becomes Brahman indeed" (Muṇḍ. 3.2.9), "The knower
of Brahman attains the highest" (Tait. 2.1), "He attains all the worlds"
¹ That is, knowledge leading to meditation, not knowledge in the Śaṁkarite
sense.
² Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
( 713 )

[SŪ. 3. 4. 2.
714 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.]
(Chānd. 8.7.1, 23. 8 12.6) ¹, “I know this great person of the colour
of the sun, beyond darkness” (Vj.S. 31 18; Śvet. 3.8), “Knowing
him thus one becomes immortal on earth, there is no other way to
salvation” (Tait. Ār. 3.12 ²), “Just as the flowing rivers merge in the
sea, discarding names and forms, so a knower, freed from name and
form, attains the celestial Person, higher than the high” (Muṇḍ.
3.2 8), “When the seer sees the Golden-coloured creator, the Lord,
the Person, the source of Brahma, then the knower, having discarded
merit and demerit, stainless attains the highest equality” (Muṇḍ.
3.1.3) and so on,—“so” the reverend “Bādarāyaṇa” thinks.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
The word “puruṣārtha” does not mean only ‘salvation’ according
to him, but all the four ends of men, viz. religious merit, wealth,
enjoyment and salvation. The prima facie view is that meditation
brings about salvation only and not heaven and the rest. The
answer is that not only salvation, but all the four end of men arise
from meditation ³
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtras 2–7)
SŪTRA 2
“ON ACCOUNT OF BEING COMPLEMENTARY, (THE STATEMENTS
ABOUT THE FRUITS) ARE GLORIFICATION OF THE MAN, JUST AS IN
OTHER CASES, SO JAIMINI (THINKS).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
As knowledge effects the purification of the agent who is a subsi-
diary part of action, it is but a subsidiary part of action, on
account of the agent “being complementary” to action. The scrip-
tural statement about the fruit is “glorification”, just like the scrip-
1 Correct quotation: “Sarvāmś ca”, vide Chānd., p. 440.
2 P. 199.
3 G.B. 3.4.1.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 2.
ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 715
tural statement about the fruit, viz the hearing of non-sinful verses,
with reference to the objects made of the parṇa-wood.¹
Vedānta-kaustubha
Having thus begun with the correct conclusion of the Upaniṣads,
now (the author) is stating the prima facie view.
Knowledge is a subsidiary part of action Why? "On account
of being complementary," i e. because the self, which to be known,
stands in a complementary relation to action, in consequence of being
the agent, i.e. because any effort towards acts having heaven and
the rest as their ends is possible if there be the knowledge of the
self as different from the body and the rest on the part of the agent
Hence as knowledge effects the purification of the agent, it too is a
subsidiary element of action ². The scriptural statements about
the fruit, on the other hand, such as: "The knower of the self crosses
over grief" (Chānd. 7.1 3). "The knower of Brahman attains the
highest" (Tait 2 1) and so on, may be taken as a "glorification of
the man", i.e. mere glorification, "just as in other cases", i.e. just as
in the case of objects, purification and acts, the scriptural statements
about the fruit are mere glorifications.
Thus, with regard to objects, there is the passage: "He whose
sacrificial ladle is made of the parṇa-wood does not hear sinful verse"
(Tait. Saṃ. 3 5.7 ³); with regard to purification, the passage: "He
who anoints his eyes wards off the eye of his enemy"; and with
regard to acts, the passage: "He who performs the prayāja and the
anuyāja sacrifices makes, forsooth, an armour for this sacrifice" and
¹ The object, viz. the ladle, made of the parṇa-wood, is a subsidiary part
of the sacrifice and hence the fruit ascribed to it, viz. the hearing of non-sinful
verses, subserves the purpose of the sacrifice, i.e. glorifies it. Similarly, the
agent, i.e. the sacrificer, is a subsidiary part of sacrifice, and hence the fruit
ascribed to the knowledge of the self of the sacrificer subserves the sacrifice,
i.e. glorifies it, but such a knowledge has no independent fruit of its own.
² That is, the agent, the sacrificer, cannot undertake the performance of
sacrifices, leading to heaven and so on, unless he first knows that his soul is
different from and survives the body, for evidently the body does not go to
heaven, but the soul only. This knowledge of the real nature of the self as
distinct from the body, therefore, qualifies the agent for undertaking the per-
formance of sacrifices and as such is a complementary factor of sacrifices.
³ P. 311, lines 23-24, vol. 1.
16

716 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 3.
ADH. 1.]
so on. It has been said: “The statement about the end attained
with regard to substance, quality and purification must be glorifica-
tion, because they subserve the purpose of another” (Pū Mī Sū.
4.3 1¹). So is the case here too,—“so” the teacher “Jaimini” thinks.
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued)
SŪTRA 3
“ON ACCOUNT OF THE OBSERVATION OF CONDUCT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
On account of the conduct of Janaka and others as declared by
the scriptural text “Verily, Janaka, the king of Videha, performed
a sacrifice in which many presents were given” (Bṛh. 3 1 1²) and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected that in accordance with the aphorisms, viz..
“Not the other, on account of inappropriateness” (Br. Sū 1.1.17),
“And on account of the designation of difference” (Br. Sū 1.1 22),
“And on account of inappropriateness, not the embodied one” (Br.
Sū. 1.2.3) and so on; in accordance with the scriptural texts, viz..
“The eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious,
the one among the many, who grants desires” (Kaṭha 5 13; Śvet.
6.13), “There are two unborn ones, the knower and the non-knower,
the lord and the non-lord” (Śvet. 1.9), “The Lord of matter and
soul, the controller of qualities, the cause of transmigratory existence,
salvation, continuance and bondage” (Śvet. 6.16), “He is the cause,
the lord of the lord of the sense-organs” (Śvet. 6.9), “He who is
omniscient and all-knowing” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9; 2.2.7) and so on; and in
accordance with the Smṛti-texts, viz.: ‘“Because I surpass the perish-
able and am superior to the imperishable also, I am celebrated in
world and in the Veda as the highest Person”’ (Gītā 15.18) and so on,
the Highest Self, different in nature from the individual soul,
¹ P. 487, vol. 1. ² Ś, R, Bh, B
16B

[sū. 3 4. 4.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 717
has been established as the object to be known. He is not comple-
mentary to action. Hence the knowledge relating to Him is not a
subsidiary part of action,—
(We reply·) On the ground of the indicatory marks mentioned
by the Vedānta-texts themselves, the Vedānta-texts are concerned
with the real nature of the agent, different from his body. Those
indicatory marks are being stated.
As Janaka and others, possessed of the knowledge of Brahman,
are said to perform Sacrifices, etc , with knowledge, by scriptural and
Smṛti texts like: "Verily, Janaka, the king of Videha, performed a
sacrifice in which many presents were given" (Bṛh 3 1.1), "For by
work alone Janaka and others attained to perfection" (Gītā 3 20) and
so on, knowledge is a subsidiary part of action.
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued)
SŪTRA 4
"ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT ABOUT THAT." ¹
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"On account of the scriptural statement" about the subserviency
of knowledge to action, viz.: "What alone one does with knowledge,
with faith, with the mystic doctrine, that alone becomes more potent"
(Chānd. 1.1.10 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
"That," i.e. the fact that knowledge is a subsidiary part of action,
is indeed reasonable. Why? "On account of the scriptural state-
ment", viz.: "What alone one does with knowledge, with faith and the
mystic doctrine, that alone becomes more potent" (Chānd. 1.1.10).
¹ Note that while Nimbārka understands the word "tac chruteḥ" as a
compound word and explains it as "tasya śruteḥ", Śrīnivāsa understands it as
"Tat śruteḥ"—two separate words.
² Ś, R, Bh, Sk, B.

718 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 6.
ADH. 1.]
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued)
SŪTRA 5
"ON ACCOUNT OF LAYING HOLD OF."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And because the association of knowledge and work is declared
by the text: "Knowledge and work lay hold of him" (Bṛh. 4.4.2 ¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
On account of the scriptural statement about the association of
knowledge and work too, viz "Knowledge and work lay hold of him"
(Chānd. 1.1.10), it is known that knowledge is a subsidiary part of
work.
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued)
SŪTRA 6
"ON ACCOUNT OF ENJOINMENT (OF WORK) ON THE PART OF ONE
HAVING THAT (VIZ. KNOWLEDGE)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And "on account of the enjoinment" of work ² in the passage:
"Having studied the Veda in the house of a teacher in accordance with
rules in (the leisure) time left over from doing work for the teacher,
having returned to his own home, studying his sacred text in some
clean spot" (Chānd. 8.15.1 ³).
Vedānta-kaustubha
"On account of the enjoinment" of work "on the part of one
having that", i.e. on the part of one possessed of the knowledge of

¹ Op. cit.
² The C.S.S. ed., p. 71, adds "on the part of one possessed of knowledge".
³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.