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

{SŪ. 3. 4. 16.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 727
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 16
“AND (THERE IS) THE DESTRUCTION (OF WORK BY KNOWLEDGE)”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
For this very reason texts declare “the destruction” of work by
knowledge, thus “And his works perish, when he who is high and low
is seen” (Muṇḍ. 2.2.8 ¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
“And” texts record “the destruction” of work,—the cause of
the three kinds of miseries, and consisting in good and bad deeds,—
by knowledge, thus: “The knot of the heart is broken, all doubts are
cut off and all his works perish, when he who is high and low is seen”
(Muṇḍ. 2.2.8) and so on. There are statements by the Lord too,
viz. “‘Him whose works are burnt off by knowledge the wise call a
knower’” (Gītā 4 19), “‘The fire of knowledge reduces all works to
ashes, O Arjuna!’” (Gītā 4.3.7).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Interpretation same, but he is of the opinion that even prārabdha-
karmas may be destroyed by vidyā.²
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.
² G.B. 3.4.17, pp. 251-252, Chap. 3. “Yadyapi sarvāṇi karmāṇi
nirdagdhum vidyā samarthā tathāpi tat-sampradāya-pracārārthaéśvarec chaiva
dehārambhakam karma na nirdahati.”

728 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ 3. 4. 17
ADH. 1 ]
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 17
"AND (KNOWLEDGE ARISES) IN ONE WHO IS CHASTE FOR (SUCH
A STAGE OF LIFE IS DECLARED) IN SCRIPTURAL TEXT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"And" because knowledge is found to arise in those stages of life
which are given to chastity, its independence is definitely ascertained.
These (stages) are found in the scriptural text "There are three
branches of religious duty" (Chānd 2.23.1 ¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
Scripture declares that knowledge of Brahman arises even in those
stages of life which are given to chastity, i.e. in which the duties
of a house-holder are absent; and Scripture does not mention
works, like Agni-hotra and the rest in them. This also proves that
knowledge is something independent.
To the objection, viz. The text: "As long as he lives" contains
a reference to works like Agni-hotra and the rest. Like these, those
stages of life are not mentioned in the Veda,—we reply: "Because
in scriptural text". Those stages of life are mentioned "in scriptural
text", i.e. in the Veda, in passages like: "There are three branches of
religious duty" (Chānd. 2.23.1), "And those who meditate on faith
and austerity in the forest" (Chānd. 5.10.1), "Wishing for the world
alone the mendicants wander forth" (Bṛh 4.4.22). Hence there are
indeed such stages of life. The scriptural text: "He performs the
Agni-hotra sacrifice as long as he lives", on the other hand, refers to
those who are attached to wordly life.
1 Ś, R, Bh, Śk

[Sū. 3. 4. 18.
ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 729
OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 18)
SŪTRA 18
"(THERE IS ONLY) A REFERENCE (TO THOSE STAGES OF LIFE),
JAIMINI (THINKS SO), ON ACCOUNT OF THERE BEING NO INJUNC-
TION, FOR (SCRIPTURE) CONDEMNS (SUCH STAGES OF LIFE)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text: "There are three branches of religious duty" (Chānd.
2.23.1¹), there is only a re-mention of those stages of life, in view of
the fact that there is no injunctive word there Also as the text:
"He who extinguishes the gods" (Tait. Sam 1.5 2 ²) contains a
condemnation of other stages of life, such stages are not to be
adopted,—such is the view of "Jaimini".
Vedānta-kaustubha
The statement that such stages of life are mentioned in scriptural
texts and hence they exist,—is not justifiable, since when the section
concerned with the injunction about the worship of the Sāman ³
has been fully expounded, Scripture, changing the subject, makes
"a reference", i.e. a re-mention simply, in the text: "There are three
branches of religious duty" (Chānd. 2.23.1), of those stages of life
which are celebrated in Smṛti, with a view to eulogizing a separate
meditation on Brahman as the praṇava, that being the subject of
discussion; but does not enjoin them. Why? "On account of the
absence of any injunctive text." And, scriptural texts like: "He who
extinguishes the fire is the slayer of the hero among the gods" (Tait.
Saṃ. 1.5.2), "After having brought an acceptable gift to the teacher
do not cut off the line of progeny" (Tait. 1.11), "He who is childless
does not possess the world" (Ait. Br. 33.1 ⁴) and so on, "condemn"
other stages of life. Hence the stage of a house-holder is to be adopted
and not other stages,—so the teacher "Jaimini" thinks.
1 Ś., R., Bh., Śk.
2 P. 57, lines 5-6, vol. 1. Ś., R., Bh., Śk.
3 Vide Chānd. 2.22.
4 P. 838, Ānandāśrama sans. series ed.

730 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3 4. 19.
ADH. 1 ]
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
They read "acodanā" in place of "acodanāt",¹ and begin a new
adhikarana. Interpretation same.
Śrīkaṇṭha
He too begins a new adhikarana here. Interpretation same.
Baladeva
He too reads "acodanā" and interprets this sūtra differently
thus: "(There is a favourable) reference (to works in Scripture),
Jaimini (thinks so), (there is) no injunction (with regard to the giving
up of works), because (Scripture) condemns (such a giving up of
works)". That is, here the opponent objects to the view that a knower
may or may not act at will² by pointing out that even a knower
cannot give up all works. All that he is at liberty to do is to perform
the obligatory duties at any time he likes unlike ordinary men who
must do them at the fixed time only,—but cannot altogether omit
them.³
CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued)
SŪTRA 19
"(THEY ARE) TO BE ADOPTED, BĀDARĀYAṆA (THINKS SO), ON
ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL MENTION OF EQUALITY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Since in the text concerned with explanatory re-mention,⁴ the
other stage of life is mentioned as equal to the stage of a house-
¹ S.B. 3.4.18, p. 863 ; Bh. B. 3.4.18, p. 204.
² Vide G.B. 3.4.15.
³ G.B. 3.4.18, pp. 254-255, Chap. 3.
⁴ Viz. Chānd. 2.23.1.

[sū. 3. 4. 19
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 731
holder, the former "is to be adopted",—so the reverend "Bādarāyaṇa"
thinks.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The other stage of life "is to be adopted",—so the reverend
"Bādarāyaṇa" thinks Why? "On account of the scriptural
mention of equality," i.e. because the other stage of life is mentioned
in Scripture as equal to the stage of a house-holder. Thus, in the
text: "There are three branches of knowledge, sacrifice, study and
charity are the first; austerity alone is the second; a student of sacred
knowledge dwelling in the house of a preceptor is the third" (Chānd.
2.23.1) there is an equal inclusion of all the stages of life. Among
these, the stage of a house-holder is indicated by the words 'sacrifice,
study' and so on. The stage of a religious student is referred to by that
very word The stages of a hermit in the forest ¹ and of an ascetic ²
are referred to by the word 'austerity'.
If those who belong to these stages of life devote themselves to
the duties incumbent thereon desiring for enjoyment, then they come
to attain a world leading to return, in accordance with the scriptural
text: "All these become possessors of meritorious worlds" (Chānd.
2.23.1). But one who knows the truth about the Lord, who is desirous
of salvation, who is favoured by the Lord and who is devoted to Him,
attains His nature. The concluding text: "One who stands on Brah-
man attains immortality" (Chānd 2.23.1) intimates this, in conformity
with the statement by the Lord: '"Among thousands of men, scarce
one strives for perfection; even among the perfected ones who strive,
scarce one knows me in truth"' (Gītā 7.3), '"The worlds up to the
world of Brahmā come and go, O Arjuna! But on attaining me, O
son of Kuntī, there is no more rebirth"' (Gītā 8.16).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Here he replies to the opponent thus: "(The obligatory duties)
are to be performed, Bādarāyaṇa (thinks so) on account of the
scriptural mention of equality". That is, a knower of Brahman may
perform the obligatory duties partially just as he likes, but is not

¹ Vāna-prastha. ² Sannyāsa.
17

732 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 20.
ADH. 1.]
required to perform them exhaustively, like ordinary men. Scripture
states that such a partial performance by a knower is equal to a full
performance by ordinary men ¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (end)
SŪTRA 20
“OR, (THERE IS) AN INJUNCTION, AS IN THE CASE OF HOLDING.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is indeed “an injunction”. Just as with regard to the
enjoined Agni-hotra, it is said in Scripture: “Let him follow holding
the sacrificial faggot below (the ladle) He holds it above for the
gods” (Āp. Ś.S. 9.11.8-9 ²),—in this text ³ the holding above (of the
faggot) by separating (it) is enjoined, since it is something new (not
enjoined anywhere)—so is the case here.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Having thus pointed out that even if we hold that there is (only)
a re-mention (of those stages of life and not injunction), still then
the other stage of life may be proved to exist, (the author now) points
out that in this text there is indeed an injunction with regard to them
and not a re-mention.
The word “or” implies emphasis In the stated text there is
indeed “an injunction” with regard to those stages of life. Appre-
hending the objection that the text will cease to be a coherent and un-
broken whole if it be admitted that in one and the same text there is
an injunction with regard to many stages of life,—(the author) says·
“As in the case of holding”. Just as with regard to the enjoined
Agni-hotra it is declared by Scripture: “Let him follow holding the
¹ G.B. 3.4.19, p. 255-256, Chap. 3.
² P. 157, vol. 2. The texts read, “Adastāt samidhaṁ dhārayan dakṣiṇena
vihāraṁ udravati” (8). “Upari devebhya dhārayati iti vijñāyate” (9). Ś, R,
Bh, Śk.
³ Other editions read “vākyaṁ” instead of “vākye”.
17B

[sū. 3. 4. 20.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 733
sacrificial faggot below (the ladle). He holds it above for the gods"
(Āp. Ś.S. 9.11.8-9)—here though occurring in the same sentence
with the holding of the faggot below the ladle, the holding of the
faggot, by separating it, over the clarified butter placed in a ladle is
enjoined because of being something new (not enjoined before),¹—
so here too. It has been said in the section treating of what is com-
plimentary (action): "But (there is) an injunction with regard to the
holding, on account of being something new" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.4.3²).
Although with regard to this stage of life, there is an injunction cele-
brated in a text of the Jābāla, viz "Having completed the life of a
religious student, let one become a house-holder. Having become a
house-holder, let one become a dweller in the forest. Having become
a dweller in the forest, let one wander forth. Or else, let one wander
forth from the very life of a religious student, or from the house, or
from the forest. The day one gets indifferent to the world, let him
wander forth on that very day" (Jābāla 4),—yet it is shown by his
Holiness that the other stage of life occurs in other texts as well
irrespective of that,—this is to be understood here. The texts, viz.
"He who extinguishes the fire is the slayer of the hero of the gods"
(Tait. Sam. 1.5.2). "After having brought an acceptable gift for the
teacher, let him not cut off the line of progeny" (Tait. I. 11), "One who
is childless does not possess the world" (Ait. Br. 33.1) and so on, are
concerned with people hankering after enjoyment. Hence it is
established that the end of men arises from knowledge.
Here ends the section entitled "The end of Men" (1).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He continues here the same topic, viz. whether a knower of Brah-
man must work or not. Hence the sūtra: "Or (the text designating
¹ I.e. the above passage may be conceived as a coherent and unbroken
whole if we take it to be referring to one thing only, viz the holding of the faggot
below. Nevertheless, we conceive it as enjoining the holding of the faggot above
too, since this latter is not enjoined anywhere else.
² The sūtra really reads: "Vidhīstu apūrvatvāt syāt".

734 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 21.
ADH. 2.]
that a knower of Brahman may perform his duties in any way is) an
injunction, like the holding (i.e. studying)". That is, the above text
is an injunction with reference to the pariṇiṣṭha devotees, allowing
them to act according to their will, just like the injunction, viz. that a
Brāhmaṇa is to be initiated in order that he may study the Veda ¹
Adhikaraṇa 2: The section entitled "A Mere
Eulogy". (Sūtras 21-22)
SŪTRA 21
"IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (THE TEXTS ABOUT THE BEST ESSENCE
AND THE LIKE ARE MERE EULOGY, ON ACCOUNT OF TAKING (THEM
AS CONNECTED WITH PARTS OF SACRIFICES,) (THEN WE REPLY )
NO, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING NEW."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
If it be objected that texts like: "This is the best essence
among the essences" (Chānd. 1. 1.3 ²) and so on, are "mere eulogy"
of udgītha and the rest, the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, since
the best essence and the rest are taken as related to them,—(we reply.)
"No". This being not established before, here there is an injunction
with regard to the udgītha and the rest to be looked upon as the best
essence.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been established above that since in the text: "There are
three branches" (Chānd. 2.2.3, 1) and so on, the other stage of life is
mentioned as equal to the stage of a house-holder, the former is to
be adopted. Similarly, as the groups of texts about the best essence
are similar to the texts about the sacrificial ladle the sun and so on
which relate to the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, the former too
are subsidiary parts of such acts,—apprehending this objection, (the
author) is now disposing of it.
¹ G.B. 3.4.20, p. 257, Chap. 3.
² Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[SŪ 3. 4. 21.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 735
Under the udgītha-meditation and the like, the following are
mentioned by Scripture: "This is the best essence among the essences,
the supreme and the highest place, the eighth,—the udgītha" (Chānd.
1.1 3), "The Ṛic is this earth indeed, the Sāman the fire" (Chānd.
1.6.1), "Verily, this world is the piled up fire" (Śat. Br. 10.5 4, 1 ¹),
"This earth forsooth, is the hymn" (Ait Ār. 2.1.2 ²) and so on. Here
the doubt is, viz. whether the texts about the best essence and so
on are concerned simply with an eulogy of the udgītha and the rest
which are subsidiary parts of sacrifices, or whether they enjoin the
udgītha and the rest to be looked upon as the best essence and so on.
With regard to this, (the author) states the prima facie view: "If
it be objected: mere eulogy, on account of taking". That is, they are
concerned simply with eulogy. Why ? "On account of taking,"
i e. as the groups of texts about the best essence and so on are similar
to the texts eulogizing the subsidiary parts of sacrificial parts, such as:
"This earth indeed in the sacrificial ladle, the sun the tortoise, the
heavenly world the āhavanīya-fire", and so on, they must be taken
as concerned with the glorification of udgītha and the rest which are
subordinate members of sacrificial acts.
To this we say: "No." This cannot be said. Why? "On
account of being something new," i.e. because the udgītha and the
rest are not established as the best of essence by any other means or
proof. The injunction refers to the udgītha and the rest to be looked
upon as the best essence and so on, it being unreasonble to take a
text to be concerned with the glorification of the udgītha and the rest,
enjoined in a different place, when it is possible to interpret it in relation
to its own context.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He does not begin a new adhikaraṇa here, but continues the
topic of the previous section, viz. that a knower of Brahman is at
liberty to act at will. Hence the sūtra: "If it be said that (the texts
allowing a knower to act at will are) mere glorification, on account of
(their) reference (to works), (we reply:) No, on account of being
¹ P. 798, line 17.
² P. 101.

736 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 22.
ADH. 2.]
something new". That is, that a knower is at liberty to act at will is
not enjoined before, and it is enjoined in the above texts ¹
SŪTRA 22
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF TEXTS (INDICATIVE OF) THE EXISTENCE (OF
INJUNCTION)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"And" on account of the injunctive "text", viz. "Let one medi-
tate on the udgītha" (Chānd 1.1.1 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
"And" on account of injunctive "texts" like: "Let one meditate
on the udgītha" (Chānd. 1 1.1), "Let one meditate on the sāman"
(Chānd. 2 2.1) and so on, it is established that the quoted texts enjoin
the udgītha and the rest to be viewed (i e. meditated on) as the best
essence and so on.
Here ends the section entitled "Mere Eulogy" (2).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Here he concludes the topic that a knower may perform actions at
will. Thus the sūtra: "And on account of texts (indicative of) in-
tense love". That is, the pariniṣṭha devotee is so absorbed in love
and devotion for the Lord that he has no time for performing ordinary
works.³
¹ G.B. 3.4.21, pp. 257-258, Chap. 3.
² Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
³ G.B. 3.4.22, pp. 258-259, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3. 4. 23.
ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 737
Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled "The
legends recited at the Aśva-medha". (Sūtras
23-24)
SŪTRA 23
"IF IT BE SAID THAT (THE SCRIPTURAL STORIES) ARE MEANT TO
BE RECITED AT THE AŚVA-MEDHA, (WE REPLY:) NO, ON ACCOUNT
OF BEING SPECIFIED."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
It is not to be thought that the scriptural stories in the Vedāntas
are meant to be recited at the Aśva-medha sacrifice,¹—since only
some are specified (to be so) by texts, beginning: "He is to tell
the legends recited at the Aśva-medha" and continuing: "Manu,
Vivasvat's son, the King" (Śat. Br. 13 4.3, 3 ²) and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Apprehending the objection that the texts about the best essence
are concerned with something else, it has been shown that they relate
to meditation (and not to action). Similarly, apprehending the
objection that the texts dealing with particular stories are concerned
with something else, (the author) shows that they (too) relate to
meditation.
In the different Vedāntas, there are many texts relating stories,
such as: "Forsooth, Pratardana, the son of Divodāsa, went to the
favourite place of Indra" (Kauṣ. 3.1), "Now, there was Jānaśruti,
the great-grandson (of Janaśruti) a pious giver, a liberal donor, a
preparer of much food" (Chānd. 4.1.1), "Now, there was Śvetaketu,
the son of Aruṇa" (Chānd. 6.1.1), "Yājñavalkya had two wives,
Maitreyī and Kātyāyanī" (Bṛh. 4.5.1) and so on. Here the doubt
is, viz. whether they are meant to be recited at the Aśva-medha
sacrifice, or whether they subserve the injunction of meditation.
What is reasonable to begin with? "If it be said that they are meant
to be recited at the Aśva-medha, (we reply) no." Why? "On
¹ A pāriplava is a legend to be recited at the Aśva-medha sacrifice and
repeated at certain intervals throughout the year.
² Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

[SŪ. 3. 4 24
738 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.]
account of being specified," i.e. in the text beginning "He is to tell
the legends recited at the Aśva-medha" and continuing "Manu,
Vivasvat's son, the King" (Śat Br 13 4.3, 3) and so on, certain texts
alone are specified as those to be recited at the Aśva-medha.
COMPARISON
Bhāskara
He takes this sūtra and the next as constituting a single sūtra,
and reads "pāriplavārtha" instead of "pāriplavārthā" ¹.
———
SŪTRA 24
"AND THIS BEING SO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONNECTION (OF THESE
STORIES WITH MEDITATION) AS FORMING PART OF A COHERENT
WHOLE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
This being so, on account of the connection" of other (stories)
with injunction,—such as: "Should be seen" (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6 ²)
and so on—"as forming part of a coherent whole", they subserve the
purpose of meditation.
Vedānta-kaustubha
"And this being so," i.e. all the scriptural stories being not legends
to be recited at the Aśva-medha, only some being so, these former
scriptural stories subserve the end of the injunction of meditation,
"on account of their connection" with injunctions like "O, the self
should be seen" (Bṛh. 2.4.5; 4.5.6) and so on, "as forming part of a
coherent whole". Hence it is established that the scriptural stories
subserve the purpose of the injunction of meditation.
Here ends the section entitled "The legends recited at the
Aśva-medha" (3).
¹ Bh. B. 3.4.23, p. 207. ² Ś, R, Bh, B.

[sū. 3. 4. 25.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 739
Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled “The
kindling of fire” (Sūtra 25)
SŪTRA 25
“AND FOR THIS VERY REASON, (IN THE CASE OF THOSE WHO
OBSERVE CHASTITY, KNOWLEDGE IS) INDEPENDENT OF THE KIN-
DLING OF FIRE AND SO ON.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In accordance with the scriptural text: “One who is devoted to
Brahman goes to immortality” (Chānd 2.23 1 ¹), in the case of those
who are bound by chastity, knowledge is “independent of the kindling
of fire and so on”
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been stated above that the stages belonging to one bound
by chastity are mentioned in Scripture. Immediately after that,
two more points ² were considered by reason of their association with
what has been shown Now, on the doubt, viz. whether by reason
of the absence of acts like sacrifices and so on which are subsidiary
parts of knowledge, knowledge too, the whole, is possible in those
stages or not: and on the suggestion that it is not possible, but is
possible in the stage of a house-holder, involving the knowledge of
sacrifices and so on,—(the author) states the correct conclusion.
From the scriptural texts, such as: “Desiring which people live
the life of religious studentship that word I declare to you in brief”
(Kaṭha 2.15), “Desiring this world alone mendicants wander forth”
(Bṛh. 4.4.22), “One who stands firm on Brahman attains immortality”
(Chānd. 2 23.2), “And those who meditate on faith and austerity in
the forest” (Chānd. 5.10.1) and so on, they (viz. those who are bound
by chastity) are known to have knowledge. “And for this very
reason,” it is definitely ascertained that in their case knowledge is
“independent of the kindling of fire and so on”, i.e. independent

¹ Correct quotation, “Brahma-saṁsthā”. C.U., p. 656.
² Viz. that the (a) udgītha texts and (b) the scriptural stories subserve the
purpose of meditation.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 25.
740 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 4.]
of the sacrificial acts to be accomplished by placing the fire on the
sacrificial fire-place, i e is brought about by the proper duties, in-
cumbent on their own stage of life, such as hearing, thinking, medita-
ting and so on. During the stage of a house-holder there being a
variety of unavoidable worldly and scriptural duties, the full develop-
ment of knowledge, the means to the highest end of men, is not possible;
and hence the intentional giving up of the life of a house-holder for
the sake of that (viz knowledge) is known from Scripture itself.
Therefore, it is established that in the case of those who are bound
by chastity, knowledge is all the more possible.
Here ends the section entitled "The kindling of fire" (4).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
While Nimbārka holds that knowledge is independent of works
only in the case of those who are bound by chastity, Śaṁkara is of the
opinion that this is so in all cases, and does not speak here especially
of those only who observe chastity. Accordingly he, interprets the
phrase "ata eva" as "because the highest end of men arises from
knowledge" (established Br. Sū. 3.4.1 ¹).
Baladeva
He also does not speak here of those alone who are bound by
chastity. Hence the sūtra: "For this very reason, (i.e. because vidyā
is independent of karma, it) does not depend on the kindling of fire
and the like, (for manifesting its fruit)". That is, there is no necessity
for a combination of vidyā and karma for leading to salvation, but
vidyā alone is sufficient.²
¹ Ś B. 3.4.25, p. 874.
² G.B 3.4.25.

[sū. 3. 4. 26.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 741
Adhikarana 5: The section entitled "Depend-
ence on all". (Sūtra 26)
SŪTRA 26
"AND DEPENDENCE ON ALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIP-
TURAL TEXT ABOUT SACRIFICE AND SO ON, AS IN THE CASE OF A
HORSE."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In accordance with the scriptural text: "Him the Brāhmanas
desire to know by the recitation of the Veda, by sacrifice" (Bṛh 4.4.2 ¹),
knowledge depends for its own origination on all the works which are
the means, as one depends on a horse for going
Vedānta-kaustubha
Knowledge being established to be the means to the highest end
of men, it might be thought that all works are to be given up.
Apprehending this objection, (the author) is now exhibiting their use
for producing the desire to know.
On the doubt, viz If the highest end of men arises through
knowledge alone, then is it independent of all duties incumbent on the
stages of life or dependent ?—if it be suggested that the desired end
being accomplished through it (viz. knowledge) alone, what is the
use of works ? Hence it is independent of all,—
We reply: "Dependence on all".
The compound "dependence on all" ("sarvāpekṣā") is to be
explained as follows. That which depends, for its origin, on all the
duties, incumbent on the stages of life, i.e. the subsidiary parts (of
knowledge), which are performed by those who are desirous of salva-
tion and aim at knowledge. But when it has originated, it does not
depend on anything for bringing about the highest end of men. Why ?
"In accordance with the scriptural text about sacrifice and the rest,"
viz. "Him the Brāhmaṇas desire to know by the recitation of the
Veda, by sacrifice, by charity, by austerity, by fasting" (Bṛh. 4.4.22).
The word 'Vividiṣanti' is to be explained as: They 'desire to know'
by sacrifices and the rest. Here, if the primacy of the meaning of the
suffix be admitted, then sacrifices and the rest are to be regarded as
subsidiary parts of knowledge by way of (producing) a desire (for
1 Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

742 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 4. 26.
ADH 5.]
knowledge), (i.e. indirectly). If the primacy of the meaning of the
root be admitted, then sacrifices and the rest are to be regarded as
the subsidiary parts of so desired knowledge directly.¹
A parallel instance is cited: "As in case of a horse". A horse
is needed for accomplishing a journey to a desired place; but when
the journey is accomplished, it is no longer needed—so is the case
here.² It has been said by the Lord as well: ' "The acts of sacrifice,
charity and austerity are not to be given up, but are to be performed
Sacrifice, charity and austerity are the purifiers of the wise" ' (Gītā
18 8), ' "From whom proceeds the activity of all beings, by whom
all this is pervaded, by worshipping Him with his own work, a man
attains perfection" ' (Gītā 18.46) Thus it is established that know-
ledge,—having the form of worship, meditation, highest devotion,
steady remembrance and so on; the destroyer of all evil; the special
cause of the attainment of the nature of the Highest Person, denoted
by the terms 'Highest Brahman' and so on; and attainable through
His grace,—arises, through the grace of Scripture and the spiritual
teacher, from the proper performance of the daily and occasional
duties, incumbent on one's own stage of life, and constituting the
means to the worship of Lord Vāsudeva.
Here ends the section entitled "Dependence on all" (5).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
The example "aśva-vat" interpreted differently. He points
out that knowledge is dependent on work in the sense that work
gives rise to it; and independent of work in the sense that once gene-
rated, it does not depend on work for bringing about its result, viz.
salvation. Hence there is no contradiction in saying that knowledge
is independent of work (as done in the previous sūtra) and dependent
on it (as done in this sūtra). In this world everything has its own
particular use. A horse, e.g. is of no use for drawing the plough,
but is of use for drawing the chariot only. Similarly, works are of
¹ See Br. Sū. 1.1.4, pp. 37-38.
² I.e. Karma is needed for the rise of vidyā; but when vidyā has once
originated, it is no longer needed.

[SŪ. 3. 4 27.
ADH 6] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 743
no use in bringing about the result of knowledge, but are of use only
for giving rise to it.¹
Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha
They too interpret the example "aśva-vat" differently thus:
Just as a horse, though the real means of going, depends on some other
assisting factors, viz. saddle, attendants, grooming and the like, so
knowledge, though the real means to salvation, depends on the co-
operation of works.²
Bhāskara
This is sūtra 25 in his commentary. Interpretation different.
In direct contrast to Nimbārka, he points out that Karma is not the
cause of the origin of knowledge ³, but its essential part bringing
about salvation. Thus, here he stresses his doctrine of the combina-
tion of knowledge and work. He interprets the example "aśva-vat"
thus: "Just as a horse is fit for carrying a man, but not for drawing
a plough, so knowledge, combined with work, is fit for leading to
salvation, and not mere knowledge".⁴
Adhikaraṇa 6: The section entitled "Calm-
ness, self-control and so on". (Sūtra 27)
SŪTRA 27
"BUT STILL (THE SEEKER AFTER THE KNOWLEDGE OF BRAH-
MAN) MUST BE ENDOWED WITH CALMNESS, SELF-CONTROL AND
SO ON; SINCE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE INJUNCTION OF THESE
AS THE SUBSIDIARY PARTS OF THAT (VIZ. KNOWLEDGE), THEY
ARE TO BE PRACTISED NECESSARILY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Although in the case of one who desires to know Brahman,
knowledge may be brought about through the proper performance
¹ Ś.B. 3.4.26, pp. 875-876.
² Śrī. B. 3.4.26, p. 376, Part 2; ŚK. B. 3.4.26, p. 398, Parts 10 and 11.
³ "Na ca jñāna-svarūpotpattau karma vyapriyate; śravaṇamananādi
tad-utpatti-kāraṇam.
⁴ Bh. B. 3 2.25 (written as 3.2.26), p. 210

744 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 27.
ADH. 6 ]
of the duties incumbent on his own stage of life, yet he "must be
endowed with calmness, self-control and so on", since, "on account
of the injunction" of calmness and the rest in the passage. "Hence,
he who knows thus, having become calm, self-restrained, indifferent,
patient and collected, should see the self in the self alone" (Bṛh
4.4.23 ¹), "they are to be practised necessarily".
Vedānta-kaustubha
Having thus determined the external means to the origination
of knowledge, the author is now determining the internal means.
On the doubt, viz. whether a seeker after the knowledge of
Brahman must be endowed with calmness, self-control and so on
in order that there may be the rise of knowledge, or not,—if it be sug-
gested: Since calmness and the rest, being posterior to the rise of
knowledge, are not its subsidiary parts, and since the rise of know-
ledge is possible by means of those works alone which are mentioned
in the text: "Him the Brāhmaṇas desire to know by the recitation
of the Veda" (Bṛh. 4.4.22), it is not reasonable to suppose that the
seekers after the knowledge of Brahman should be endowed with
calmness and so on,—
We reply: the word "but" is meant for disposing of the objection.
Although knowledge is possible on the part of a seeker after the
knowledge of Brahman through the purification of the mind by
works, "still" he "must be endowed with calmness, self-control and
so on". Why? They "are to be performed necessarily", on account
of the injunction of them as subsidiary parts of that, i.e. because
calmness, self-control and the rest have been enjoined as the subsi-
diary parts of knowledge, and because "they" are enjoined in the
text: "Hence, he who knows thus, having become calm, self-
restrained, indifferent, patient and collected, should see the self in the
self alone" (Bṛh. 4.4.23). Through calmness, self-control, and so
on, one-pointed attention arises (directly), in accordance with the
scriptural text: "By religious duty he drives away evil (Mahānār.
22.1). And through works, one-pointed attention arises (indirectly)
by way of the removal of sins; thence there is the rise of knowledge;

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[sū. 3. 4. 28.
ADH. 7 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 745
thence, again, there is a still greater rise of calmness and so on 1
Hence it is established that one who seeks knowledge must be endowed
with calmness and so on.
Here ends the section entitled "Calmness, self-control and so
on" (6).
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
The word "tathāpi" interpreted differently, viz. even if it be
granted that the text about sacrifices and so on (Bṛh. 4.4.22) contain
no injunction and the rest It is shown later on that the above text
is really injunctive. He does not take it as constituting an adhikaraṇa
by itself, but as included under the previous one.2
Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled "The per-
mission of all food" (Sūtras 28-31)
SŪTRA 28
"AND THE PERMISSION OF ALL FOOD (IS VALID) IN THE EVENT
OF DANGER TO LIFE, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT BEING SEEN."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The permission of all food in the text: "Verily, to one who knows
thus, there is nothing whatever that is not food" (Chānd. 5.2.1 3),
is valid only "in the event of danger to life", for Cākrāyaṇa ate the
leavings of a rich man when his life was in danger, this being found
in Scripture.
1 I.e. calmness and the rest produce (1) attention, which produces (2)
knowledge; while works first produce (1) mental purity, which produces (2)
attention, which finally produces (3) knowledge. Hence, the former are more
direct means to knowledge than the latter. Further, calmness, and the rest
are both causes and effects, i.e. they give rise to knowledge, but when knowledge
has originated, it in its turn produces a greater degree of calmness and so on.
2 Ś.B. 3.4.27, pp. 876-877. 3 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

746 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3 4. 28.
ADH. 7.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been stated that calmness and the rest are subsidiary
parts of knowledge. Now, wishing to dispose of the objection, viz.
like that, the eating of all food, too, is a subsidiary part of knowledge,—
the author points out that such eating relates only to cases of life
being in danger.
In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, it is said "Verily, what is not food is
not taken by him" (Bṛh 6.1.14); as well as in the Chāndogya · "Verily,
to one who knows thus, there is nothing whatever that is not food"
(Chānd 5.2.1) Here the doubt is, viz, whether this eating of all food
by one who knows the vital-breath is valid, as a subsidiary part of
the doctrine of the vital-breath, like calmness and so on, even when
one is in a healthy state; or only in the event of danger to life. What
is reasonable? If it be suggested: when one is in a healthy state,—
we reply: only "in the event of danger to life", there is "permission
of all food". Why? "On account of that being seen," i e because
in the text: "When the Kurus were destroyed by hail-storm ¹"
(Chānd. 1.10 1), the eating of improper food is found to be allowable
only in the event of life being in danger. When all food being eaten
up by a kind of animals called 'maṭacī' there came to be a famine
among the Kurus, then the sage Cākrāyaṇa, seized with hunger, ate
the leavings of an elephant-keeper ². From this it is known that the
eating of all food is permitted even to one who knows the vital-breath
only in the event of danger to life.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Interpretation same, but he takes this adhikaraṇa as concerned
specially with the pariniṣṭha devotee.
¹ Śrīnivāsa, however, understands the word as a kind of crop-destroying
animals. See below.

• Vide Chānd. 1.10.1–5 for the story. The sage ate the leavings because
  he would have died without food, but refused to drink leavings because he could
  survive without drink.