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

[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.

[sū. 3. 4. 8.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 719
all the Vedas, by the scriptural text, viz.: "Having studied the
Veda in the house of a teacher, according to rules in time left
over from doing work for the teacher, having returned to his own
home, studying his sacred text in a clean spot" (Chānd. 8.15.1),
knowledge is a subsidiary part of work
PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded)
SŪTRA 7
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF RESTRICTION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"And on account of the restriction," viz.: "Only doing work here,
let one desire to live a hundred years", and so on (Īśā 2) ¹.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"And on account of the restriction," viz : "Only doing work
here, let one desire to live a hundred years Thus work adheres to
you, to a man. There is no other way than that" (Īśā 2), knowledge
is subservient to work alone.
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 8–20)
SŪTRA 8
"BUT ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF WHAT IS SUPERIOR,
SUCH (IS THE VIEW) OF BĀDARĀYAṆA, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT
BEING SEEN."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
With regard to it, we reply:
"On account of the teaching" of the Lord of all, the controller
of all, who is "superior to" the individual soul, the agent, as the object
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B

[SŪ. 3. 4. 8
720 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1 ]
to be known,—the view of the reverend “Bādarāyaṇa” is that “the
end of men arises from this” (Br. Sū. 3. 4. 1), “On account of that being
seen” from the texts: “He is the Lord of all” (Bṛh. 4. 4. 22 ¹), “Entered
within, the ruler of men” (Tait. Ār. 3.11. 1, 2 ²), “The ruler of all,
the controller of all” (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ³), “I ask about that Person taught
in the Upaniṣads” (Bṛh. 3.9.26 ⁴), “The word which all the Vedas
record” (Kaṭha 2.15 ⁵) and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
On this suggestion, (the author) replies:
The word “but” is for disposing of the prima facie view. The
view of Jaimini,—that by way of effecting the purification of what
is complementary to work, viz. the agent, knowledge, obtainable from
the Upaniṣads, is a subsidiary part of work,—is not correct. On
the contrary, “on account of the teaching of what is superior” to the
individual soul, the agent, possessed of the stated marks, i.e. as the
Highest Person,—the soul of all, free by nature from all faults,
an abode of a mass of auspicious qualities, possessed of natural,
infinite and inauspicious powers, the cause of the world, the Lord of
matter and soul and the Lord of all,—is taught as the object of
knowledge, as He alone is established as the object to be known by
the Vedāntas, the end of men arises from knowledge,—“such” is
the view of the reverend “Bādarāyaṇa”. Why? “On account of
that being seen,” i.e. because texts are found which establish “that”,
viz. the Highest Self alone, the object to be known, i.e. a multitude
of texts are found establishing Him, such as: “All this has that for
its self” (Chānd. 6.8.7, etc.), “Higher than the imperishable, the
high” (Muṇḍ. 2.1.2), “Free from sins, ageless, deathless, griefless,
without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true
resolves” (Chānd. 8.7.1, 3), “He who is omniscient, all-knowing”
(Muṇḍ. 1.1.9; 2.2.7), “He consists of infinite auspicious qualities.—
He is possessed of might, power, lordship and supreme knowledge”
(V.P. 6.5.84 ⁶), “Supreme is his power, declared to be of various kinds,
and natural is the operation of his knowledge and might” (Śvet. 6.8),
“He is the cause, the lord of the lord of the sense-organs” (Śvet. 6.9),
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ R. ² P. 181. Not quoted by others.
³ Op. cit. ⁴ Op. cit.
⁵ Op. cit. ⁶ P. 837.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 9.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 721
"The lord of matter and souls" (Śvet. 6.16), "The word which all
the Vedas record" (Kaṭha 2.15), '"I ask that Person taught in the
Upaniṣads"' (Bṛh. 3 9.26), '"I am the source of all, everything
originates from me"' (Gītā 10.8), '"There is nothing else higher than
me, O Dhanañjaya"' (Gītā 7 7), '"And by all the Vedas I alone am
to be known"' (Gītā 15 15) and so on
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He interprets the sūtra thus
"But on account of the teaching (of vidyā as) more than (or
superior to) (karma)—" ¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 9
"BUT THE SCRIPTURAL DECLARATION IS EQUAL."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"The scriptural declaration,"—viz.: '"For what purpose shall
we study, for what purpose shall we perform sacrifices"' ² and so
on,—establishing that knowledge is not a subsidiary part of work, is
of equal weight.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz.: "On account of conduct being seen"
(Br. Sū. 3.4.3), knowledge is a subsidiary part of work,—we reply:
"The scriptural declaration" of the non-performance of works
by knowers, establishing that knowledge is not a subsidiary part
of action, is of equal weight, such as: "Knowing this, forsooth, the
sages descended from Kavaṣa said: 'For what purpose shall we study,
for what purpose shall we perform sacrifices?'", "Knowing this,
1 G.B. 3.4.8, pp. 240-241, Chap. 1.
2 Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

722 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 10.
ADH 1.]
indeed, those ancient ones did not perform the Agni-hotra sacrifice"
(Kauṣ. 2.5 ¹), "Verily, having known that self, the Brāhmaṇas, rising
above the desires for sons, the desires for wealth,—² live the life of
mendicants" (Bṛh 3.5.1) Our view is that the performance of works
without any desire for results, but only with a desire for knowledge,
is justified. This (the author) will state under the aphorism "And
reference to all, on account of the scriptural text about sacrifice and
so on, as in the case of a horse" (Br. Sū. 3.4.26). It has been stated
by the Lord too thus: " 'By work also, Janaka and others attained
perfection' " (Gītā 3.20), and " 'The knowers should similarly act
without attachment, desiring the welfare of the world' " (Gītā 3.25).
The sense is that if we hold that knowledge is a subsidiary part of
work, then the scriptural text about the non-performance of work will
come to be contradicted.³
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 10
"(THE TEXT QUOTED BY THE prima facie OBJECTOR IS) NON-
UNIVERSAL."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The scriptural text, viz.: "What alone one does with knowledge"
(Chānd. 1.1.10 ⁴) is not concerned with all sorts of knowledge.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz.: "On account of the scriptural statement
of that" (Br. Sū. 3 4.4), we reply:
¹ For correct quotation see Kauṣ., p. 114.
² 'Desires for worlds.'
³ I.e. if we hold that knowledge is not a subsidiary part of work, then those
texts which do enjoin the performance of works on the part of knowers may very
well be explained as enjoining the performance of works in a purely disinterested
spirit with a view to the attainment of knowledge. But if we hold that know-
ledge is a subsidiary part of work, then those scriptural texts which enjoin the
non-performance of action cannot be explained in any way.
⁴ Ś, R, Śk, Bh, B.

[sū. 3. 4. 12.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 723
The scriptural text: “What alone one does with knowledge”
(Chānd. 1.1 10), referring to the udgītha alone, is “non-universal”,
i e. is not concerned with all sorts of knowledge.
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 11
“THE DIVISION (IS) AS IN THE CASE OF A HUNDRED.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text: “Knowledge and work lay hold of him” (Bṛh. 4.4.2 ¹),
“the division” is to be known just like the division of a hundred (coins)
for the sake of a two-fold fruit.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz.: “On account of laying hold of” (Br.
Sū. 3.4.5), we reply:
In the text: “Knowledge and work lay hold of him” (Bṛh. 4.4.2),
a “division” is to be known, viz. knowledge lays hold of him for
bringing about its own special result and work for its own special
result, “as in the case of a hundred”. That is, just as when for the
accomplishment of two purposes it is said: ‘give him a hundred
(coins)’, these are divided and fifty are given for one purpose, fifty
for the other,—so is the case here.
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 12
“ON THE PART OF ONE WHO HAS ONLY READ THE VEDA.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text: “Having studied the Veda in the house of a preceptor”
(Chānd. 8.15.1 ²), work is enjoined “on the part of one who has only
read the Veda”.
¹ Op. cit. ² Ś, R, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 13.
724 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz "On account of the enjoinment on the part
of one having that" (Br Sū. 3 4.6), we reply:
In the text: "Having studied the Veda in the house of a pre-
ceptor" (Chānd. 8.15.1), work is enjoined "on the part of one who has
only read" the Veda, but not on the part of one who possesses know-
ledge, so knowledge cannot be taken to be a subsidiary part of
work. Though one who has not studied the Pūrva-tantra ¹ may, in
accordance with the injunction about the Vedic study, viz. "Let one
study the Veda", labour with great care to master the Veda, and
though he may attain a little knowledge, yet since he lacks the know-
ledge of the real nature of religious duties and the method of perform-
ing them, demonstrated in the Pūrva-tantra, he, as dependent on
that tantra, comes to have a reading knowledge only of the Veda, but
does not know the meaning thereof The meaning of the Veda, on the
other hand, according to the author of the Pūrva-tantra, is attainable
through an investigation into that tantra But, in our view, even one
who after studying the Veda, has come to know the mystery of reli-
gious duties and even one who knows everything in a general way, is
said to have only read the Veda, since he has not investigated into the
Vedānta, designating Brahman, the primary meaning of all the Vedas
Work is enjoined in that text on the part of such a one, but not on the
part of a knower,—such is the view of the reverend author of the
aphorisms.
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 13
“NOT (SO), ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SPECIFICATION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And also because the text about restriction does not necessarily
refer to the knower.
¹ I.e. the Pūrva-mīmāṁsa.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 14.
ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 725
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection "On account of restriction" (Br. Sū. 3.4 7), we reply
It cannot be said on the ground of the text: "Only doing work here" (Īśā 2) that knowledge is a subsidiary part of work. Why? "On account of non-specification," i.e. because the text contains no specification, viz.: 'knowers doing work' and so on.
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 14
"OR THE PERMISSION (OF WORK) IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EULOGY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The allowing of work to one who knows, viz. "only doing work here" (Īśā 2), is "for the purpose of eulogizing" knowledge.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz Since the text begins with knowledge thus: "By the Lord all this is to be enveloped. Whatever is moving in this moving world, having that renounced, enjoy. Do not covet the wealth of any one" (Īśā 1), it is ascertained that it is specially concerned with the knower,-(the author) says:
"The permission," i.e. allowing of, work to a knower is "for the purpose of eulogizing" knowledge. Though doing work so long as he lives, a knower is not touched by karmas,-thus there is an eulogy of knowledge here, in accordance with the concluding text: "Thus, work adheres not to you, to a man, there is no other way than that" (Īśā 2), as well as in accordance with the statement by the Lord. '"Though ever doing all works, one who has resorted to me, attains the eternal and immutable place through my grace"' (Gītā 18.56), '"He who thus knows me is not bound by works"' (Gītā 4.14) and so on.

726 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 15.
ADH. 1.]
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 15
"AND SOME (BRANCHES DESIGNATE THAT KNOWERS GIVE UP
WORK) ACCORDING TO VOLUNTARY PROCEDURE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
For this very reason, "some" designate the voluntary giving
up of the life of a house-holder by the knowers thus: "'What shall we
do with progeny, we whose is this soul, this world?'" (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
"Some," i.e. the members of one branch, record the giving up
by the knowers of progeny and the rest, involving the performance of
action, "according to voluntary procedure", i.e. voluntarily indeed,
thus: "Knowing this, forsooth, those ancient ones did not wish for
progeny", '"What shall we do with progeny, we whose is this soul,
this world?"' (Bṛh. 4.4.22). The sense is that such a giving up of
the life of a house-holder fits in if knowledge be not complementary
to work, but not if it be so.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (eleven sūtras), concerned with
the power of vidyā. He substitutes "Vā" in place of "Ca". Hence
the sūtra means: "Or some (hold that a knower of Brahman may act)
according to (his) liking". That is, such great is the glory of vidyā
that one who has attained vidyā may act just as he likes, or omit to
act yet be not subject to consequences, good or bad ².
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
² G.B. 3.4.15, p. 250, Chap. 3.