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

[Sū. 3. 4. 30.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 747
SŪTRA 29
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF NON-CONTRADICTION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"And on account of the non-contradiction" of the text: "If there
be purity of food, there is purity of life" (Chānd. 7.26.2 ¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the text: "If there be purity of food, there is purity of exist-
ence. If there be purity of existence, there is steady remembrance",
(Chānd. 7.26.2), the purity of food is enjoined as a means to the rise
of knowledge. "On account of the non-contradiction also" of that,
it is definitely ascertained, that there is permission of all food only
in the event of danger to life.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Interpretation different, viz. "On account of non-obstruction".
Although in ordinary cases the taking of improper food obstructs
the full manifestation of knowledge, yet when a knower of Brahman
is obliged to do so, it does not obstruct his knowledge.²
――――――――――
SŪTRA 30
"MOREOVER (IT IS) DECLARED BY SMṚTI."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And it is declared by Smṛti too in the passage: "He who being
in danger of life eats food from anyone whatsoever is not touched by
sin, as a lotus-leaf is not touched by water".³
――――――――――
¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.
² G.B. 3.4.29, p. 268, Chap. 3.
³ The first line of the passage is similar to Manu 10.104, last line to Gītā
5.10. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.
18

[SŪ. 3. 4. 31.
748 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
“Moreover,” the eating of all food from anyone whatsoever both
by a knower and a non-knower in the event of danger of life “is
declared by Smṛti” thus: “He who being in danger of life eats food
from anyone whatsoever is not touched by sin, as a lotus-leaf is not
touched by water”.
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja and Baladeva
They omit the “Ca”.
SŪTRA 31
“AND SO THERE IS A SCRIPTURAL TEXT AS TO NON-PROCEEDING
ACCORDING TO LIKING.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
For this very reason, there is “a scriptural text” for prevent-
ing wanton acting, viz.: “Hence let not a Brāhmaṇa drink wine”
(Kāṭh. Saṃ. 12.12¹).
Vedānta-kaustubha
As the permission of all food to both who knows and who does
not is valid only in the event of life being in danger, “so” the “scrip-
tural text” of the Kaṭhas “as to non-proceeding according to liking”,
i.e. the text regarding the reverse of acting as one likes, viz. “Hence
let not a Brāhmaṇa drink wine” (Kāṭh. Saṃ. 12 12) fits in. The
permission of all food to a worshipper of the vital-breath refers to his
being in danger of life. The texts not referring to such a danger, on
the other hand, are for the purpose of glorifying those particular
vidyās, but are not enjoined as subsidiary parts of the doctrine of the
vital-breath, like calmness and so on,—this is the resulting meaning.
Hence it is established that the eating of all food is allowable only
in cases of danger to life.
Here ends the section entitled “The permission of all food” (7).

¹ P. 174, last line but four. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
18B

[SŪ. 3. 4. 32.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 749
Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "Being
enjoined". (Sūtras 32-35)
SŪTRA 32
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF BEING ENJOINED, THE WORK INCUMBENT
ON THE STAGES OF LIFE TOO"
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Sacrifices and the rest, which are subsidiary parts of knowledge,
are to be performed also by one, who does not desire for salvation,
as the duties incumbent on one's stages of life, "on account of being
enjoined" in the passage: "He performs the Agni-hotra sacrifice as
long as he lives".¹
Vedānta-kaustubha
Under the aphorism: "And dependence on all, in accordance with
the scriptural text about sacrifice" (Br. Sū. 3.4.26) it has been said
that works like sacrifices and the rest are subsidiary parts of the
knowledge of Brahman. After that, two relevant problems have
been considered. Now the question is being considered as to whether,
for the sake of gaining prosperity, works like sacrifices and the rest
are to be performed even by one, who is not desirous of salvation, as
the duties incumbent on one's stages of life.
On the doubt, viz. the works, mentioned in the text: "Him the
Brāhmaṇas desire to know by the recitation of the Veda, by sacrifice"
(Bṛh. 4.4.22) and so on, have been accepted previously as auxiliaries
to the means to salvation. Do they incur on the part of one who
does not desire for salvation, but wishes to fulfill the duties of his
stage of life merely, or not? The prima facie view is that sacrifices
and the rest, relating to a definite object, cannot be supposed to be
mere duties incumbent on the stages of life, and so they do not incur
on his part,—
We reply: "The work incumbent on the stages of life too". The
works like sacrifice, charity and so on, which are mentioned in Scrip-
ture as auxiliaries to knowledge, are "works incumbent on the stages
1 Ś, R, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 4 33.
750 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 8 ]
of life too", i e are to be performed even by one, not desirous of salva-
tion, as the duties incumbent on his stage of life too. Why? "On
account of being enjoined," i e. because in texts like "He performs
the Agni-hotra sacrifice as long as he lives" and so on, they are en-
joined as merely the works incumbent on the stages of life and to be
performed always. The sense is that such works are obligatory on the
part of one who carries out only the duties incumbent on his own
stage of life, but does not desire for salvation
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras) concerned with the
svaniṣṭha devotees. Hence the sūtra: "On account of being enjoined,
the worked incumbent on the stages of life too (are to be performed
by the svaniṣṭha devotee)". That is, even when the devotee has
come to acquire knowledge, he must go on performing his duties in
order to increase his knowledge ¹
SŪTRA 33
"ALSO BECAUSE OF BEING AUXILIARY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Since sacrifice and the rest are enjoined "also as auxiliary" to
knowledge in the text: "The Brāhmaṇas desire to know by sacri-
fice" (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ²), they are to be performed also by one who is
desirous of salvation, a double purpose being possible in accordance
with the maxim of conjunction and separateness.
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. : If this be so, then sacrifices and the rest
cannot be auxiliaries to knowledge,—the author replies :
Since sacrifice and the rest are enjoined "also as auxiliary" to
knowledge, by way of bringing about its origination, in the passage :
¹ G.B. 3.4.32, p. 271, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 34.
ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 751
"Him the Brāhmaṇas desire to know by sacrifice" (Bṛh. 4.4 22) and
so on, works like sacrifice and the rest are to be performed also by
one who is desirous of salvation. If it be objected that the same works
cannot serve the purpose of a stage of life and that of knowledge,—
we reply: that is not so, because even the same works may serve
different purposes, in accordance with the maxim: "But with regard
to one and the same thing being both, there is conjunction and sepa-
rateness" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 4.3.5¹). Just as the same quality of being
made of the Khādira-wood is laid down as serving the purpose of
sacrifices in the passage: "The sacrificial post is made of the Khādira-
wood"; and is, again, laid down as serving the purpose of men in the
passage: "For one desiring power, let one make a post of the Khādira-
wood", so is the case here.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Here he continues the topic, viz. that the svaniṣṭha devotee
should continue to act even after attaining knowledge. Hence the
sūtra: "And (the works must be done by the svaniṣṭha devotee) as
being auxiliary (to knowledge)", i. e. with a view to its further
increment.²
SŪTRA 34
"IN EVERY WAY EVEN, THOSE VERY (SACRIFICES AND THE REST
ARE THE SAME) ON ACCOUNT OF A DOUBLE INDICATORY MARK."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"Those very" sacrifices and the rest are to be taken as serving
a double purpose, since in both the cases, the works of the same form
are recognized.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author is proving the non-difference of works.
"In every way," i.e. whether taught as duties incumbent on a
stage of life or as serving the purpose of knowledge, "those very"
¹ P. 493. ² G.B. 3.2.33, p. 271, Chap. 3.

752 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 35.
ADH. 8.]
sacrifices and the rest are to be understood. Why? "On account
of a double indicatory mark," i.e. because in both the cases works of
the same form are recognized. The sense is that sacrifices and the
rest, each of the same form indeed, are taught, in both the cases,
as duties incumbent on a stage of life, and as auxiliaries to knowledge,
by respective texts.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He begins a new adhikarana here (two sūtras), concerned with the
parinistha devotees. The sūtra means according to him, "Under
all circumstances even (the pariniṣṭha devotee is to perform his duties
of worship and so on), on account of a double mark (viz. Scripture and
Smṛti)". That is, the pariniṣṭha devotee should first perform his
duties of worship and so on, and do other ordinary duties afterwards.¹
SŪTRA 35
"AND (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS THE NON-OVERPOWERING (OF KNOW-
LEDGE)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The scriptural text: "By means of religious observance one re-
moves one's sins" (Mahānār. 22.1²) "shows the non-overpowering"
of knowledge through the removal of sins—which are the cause of the
overpowering of knowledge—by the very same sacrifices and so on,
celebrated in Scripture.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The scriptural text: "For the self which one finds out through
the life of a religious student does not perish" (Chānd. 8.5.3³) "shows
the non-overpowering" of the knowledge of the self by the duties
¹ G.B. 3.4.34, pp. 274-275, Chap. 3. "Pariniṣṭhitena tena bhagavad-
dharmāḥ evānuṣṭheyāḥ. Svadharmās tu kathañ cit gauṇa-Kāle."
² P. 23, last line, reading: "anudanti".
³ Note that Śrīnivāsa understands a different passage here by the term
"darśayati".

[sū. 3. 4. 36.
ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 753
incumbent on the stages of life, such as, the life of a religious student
and so on. The phrase: ‘The self does not perish’ means that the
self is not forgotten. Sacrifices and the rest, performed as the mere
duties incumbent on the stages of life, lead to the attainment of
heaven and so on; those very sacrifices and the rest, performed as
auxiliaries to knowledge, give rise to knowledge. Hence there is
difference of application, but not difference of works. Hence it is
established that the same things are to be performed by both one who
is desirous for salvation and one who is not.
Here ends the section entitled “Being enjoined” (8).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He concludes here the topic of the pariniṣṭha devotees. “And
(Scripture) shows the non-overpowering (of a pariniṣṭha devotees).”
That is, a pariniṣṭha devotee is not overpowered by the fault of not
performing the duties incumbent on his own stage of life. He incurs
no sins by such an omission.¹
Adhikaraṇa 9: The section entitled “Widower”.
(Sūtras 36-39)
SŪTRA 36
“BUT (THOSE) ALSO (WHO STAND) BETWEEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT
BEING SEEN.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Those “also” who stand “between” the stages of life, are entitled
to knowledge, since Raikva and the like are found to be well-grounded
in knowledge.
¹ G.B. 3.4.35, pp. 275-276, Chap. 3.

754 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 36.
ADH. 9 ]
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been stated above that those who belong to one or other of
the stages of life are entitled to knowledge, and that the works per-
formed by them are auxiliaries to knowledge. Now a discussion is
being undertaken with a view to establishing that even those who
stand midway are entitled to knowledge and the works done by them
also are auxiliaries to knowledge.
The doubt is as to whether those who stand ‘between’ the stages
of life, such as widowers and so on, are entitled to the knowledge of
Brahman or not. The prima facie view is that the knowledge of
Brahman depends for its origin on the duties incumbent on the stages
of life and since those who stand “between” have no duties incumbent
on the special stages of life, they are not so entitled.
With regard to it, we reply: “Between”. That is, even those
who stand between, i.e. outside, the stages of life are entitled to the
knowledge of Brahman. Why? “On account of that being seen,”
i.e. because “that”, viz the right to the knowledge of Brahman, is
found in Scripture and Smṛti to be belonging to Raikva, Saṁvarta
and so on. The scriptural text indicating that Raikva is entitled to
the knowledge of Brahman has been quoted in the first chapter.¹ The
details of the story of Saṁvarta, the son of Aṅgiras, may be seen in the
Mahā-bhārata in the chapter treating of the horse-sacrifice thus:
‘“O King, Saṁvarta, Aṅgiras’s son, a pious man, roamed about in all
directions, sky-clothed (i.e. naked), perplexing all beings” (Mahā.
14. 137 ²) and so on.
The purport is this: Religious duties like sacrifices and the
rest, auxiliaries to knowledge and mentioned in the scriptural
text: “Him” (Bṛh. 4.4.22) and so on, are to be understood, in the case
of house-holders, as Agni-hotra and the rest, productive of knowledge
and fit for a house-holder who desires for salvation. In the case of
those who belong to those stages of life in which chastity is compulsory,
the religious duties, incumbent on those stages of life and other than
Agnihotra and so on, are to be understood (as productive of know-
ledge). Similarly, in the case of those also who do not belong to any
stage of life, muttering of prayers, fasting, worship of the deity and so
¹ Vide V.K. 1.3.34.
² P. 278, line 1, vol. 4.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 37
ADH 9 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 755
on, not obligatory to the special stages of life, are to be understood
(as productive of knowledge)
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Here he too begins a new adhikaraṇa (three sūtras), but concerned
specially with the nirapekṣa devotees only. Literal interpretation
same.
SŪTRA 37
"MOREOVER, (IT IS) DECLARED IN SMṚTI."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the Smṛti passage, viz. "But through the muttering of prayers
alone a Brāhmaṇa may attain success,—there is no doubt about it.
Whether he does something else or not, a friendly man is called a
Brāhmaṇa" (Manu 2.87 ¹), it is declared that they too may easily
attain knowledge through the muttering of prayers and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the Smṛti passage: "But through the muttering of prayers
alone, a Brāhmaṇa may attain success,—there is no doubt about it.
Whether he does something else or not, a friendly man is called a
Brāhmaṇa" (Manu 2.87), it is declared that through the muttering
of prayers alone even those who do not belong to any stage of life
may have success. The sense is that when the mind is purified through
the muttering of prayers and so on, knowledge arises. Hence they,
too, come to have their ends fulfilled.
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Baladeva
They omit the "Ca". Baladeva is here speaking of the nira-
pekṣa devotees.
1 P. 46. Ś, R, Śk.

[sū. 3. 4. 39.
756 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 9.]
SŪTRA 38
"AND (THERE IS) A SPECIAL FACILITATION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
There is "facilitation" of knowledge also through the particular
acts of duties performed in a previous life. This is declared by Smṛti
too: "'Perfected through many births, he then goes to a supreme
goal'" (Gītā 6.45 ¹)
Vedānta-kaustubha
There is "facilitation" of knowledge through the particular
works done in the course of many lives. It is declared by Smṛti too
thus: "'Perfected through many lives, he then goes to a supreme
goal'" (Gītā 6.45). The sense is that in those cases where there is
the presence of knowledge, but the absence of any duties incumbent
on the special stages of life,—mentioned above and auxiliaries to
knowledge,—other duties incumbent on the stages of life, performed
in previous births, are to be inferred.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He relates this sūtra specially with the nirapekṣa devotees only,
thus: "And (the nirapekṣa devotees attain knowledge easily through)
the special grace (of the Lord)".
SŪTRA 39
"BUT THAN THIS THE OTHER IS BETTER, ON ACCOUNT OF INDICA-
TION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Being within a stage of life is "better" than standing midway,
also "on account of the indication", viz. "Let one not remain without
a stage of life" (D.Sm. 1.10 ²).
¹ Ś, Bh. ² P. 71, line 13. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 4 39.
ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 757
Vedānta-kaustubha
"Than this," i.e. than standing midway, "the other", i.e. being
within a stage of life, is "better", since it secures the perfection of the
means to knowledge, i.e. is productive of knowledge within a short
time. Why? "On account of indication." The scriptural text:
"By it goes the knower of Brahman, the doer of meritorious deeds,
the shining one" (Bṛh. 4 4.9) shows the going of those belonging to
particular stages of life through the path of gods. The meaning of
the text is that 'the knower of Brahman', 'the doer of the meritorious
deeds', i.e. the doer of the works incumbent on his own stage of life,
"by it", i.e. by means of knowledge increased by works, go to Brahman
through the path of gods—on account of such a scriptural reference
to 'the doer of meritorious deeds' And, there are four stages of
life in conformity with the text: "And those who in the forest"
(Chānd. 5.10.1). On account of Smṛti passages as well, such as.
"Let not a twice-born remain outside the stages of life even for a
single day" ¹ (D.Sm. 1.10), "If one stays outside the stages of life for
a year, one should undergo penance. The Highest Person, forsooth,
the soul of the Universe, is pleased by a person who practises the
duties incumbent on his caste and stage of life; nothing else pleases
Him", and so on.
If, accidentally, it be impossible for one to enter any stage of
life, then one may attain salvation through the muttering of prayers,
fasting, charity, worship of the deity, non-violence, contentment,
straightforwardness, company of the great and so on. Thus says
Yājñavalkya: "Being within a stage of life is not the sole impetus to
performing religious duties; let a Brāhmaṇa practise them (whether
he be within a special stage of life or not). Hence, let no one do to
others what is unpalatable to one's own self".
It is said in historical legends too: "For what is the use of an
āśrama to one who abiding in knowledge is modest, who has the
senses under control and who abides in honesty?" For that very
reason, it has been said in the Mahā-bhārata that even in the absence
of the mark of an āśrama, one should perform religious duties thus:
"Even one who is corrupted should perform religious duties. The
mark (of an āśrama) is not the cause of religious duties". Hence it is

¹ The text reads "kṣaṇam".

[sū 3 4. 40.
758 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.]
established that in spite of the greater excellence of the state of
belonging to a stage of life, knowledge may be gained even by those
who do not belong to any special stage of life,—such as bachelors,
widowers and so on,—through the muttering of prayers and the like.
Here ends the section entitled “Widowers” (9)
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
All others add a “ca” at the end.
Baladeva
He too begins a new adhikarana here (five sūtras), concerned with
the question, viz. whether one who belongs to a stage of life is higher
or one who does not, and arrives at a conclusion opposite to that of
Nimbārka, viz. that one who does not belong to any stage of life is
higher. Hence the sūtra: “But than this (i.e. the state of belonging
to a particular āśrama) the other (i.e the state of not belonging to
any āśrama, viz that of a nirapekṣa devotee) is better, on account of
indicatory mark”.¹
Adhikaraṇa 10: The section entitled “One who
has become that”. (Sūtras 40–43)
SŪTRA 40
“BUT OF ONE WHO HAS BECOME THAT THERE IS NO BECOMING
NOT THAT, (THIS IS THE VIEW) OF JAIMINI TOO ON ACCOUNT OF
RESTRICTION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF THE FORMS OF
THAT.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“But” the giving up of the state of chastity which one has reached
is not allowed,—this the view of “Jaimini too”, on account of the
¹ G.B. 3.4.39, p. 281, Chap. 3. “Atah sāśramatvād itran nirāśramatvam
eva jyāyaḥ śreṣṭhaṃ vidyā-sādhanam mantavyam ”

[SŪ. 3. 4. 40.
ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 759
absence of texts, on account of the absence of a cause, on account of
the absence of good custom.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the problem is being considered, viz. whether those also
who have fallen from the stage of a perpetual religious student bound
by chastity and so on are entitled to knowledge or not.
It has been established above that there are such stages of life
where chastity is obligatory. The doubt is as to whether those who
have fallen from these are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, or not.
If it be suggested that like widowers and so on, they are so entitled,
through the muttering of prayers and so on,—
We reply: The word "but" is meant for disposing of the objec-
tion. "Of one who has become that," i.e. of one who has reached,
as a supreme fruit, the stage where chastity is obligatory, there is
"no becoming not that", i.e. no falling off,—this is the view "of
Jaimini too". The word "too" indicates that the author’s own
view is confirmed through being held by Jaimini as well. The sense
is that it being impossible for a perpetual religious student bound
by chastity ¹, a hermit belonging to the third religious order ² and
a mendicant belonging to the fourth religious order ³ to stay outside
a stage of life like widowers and the rest, they cannot be entitled to the
knowledge of Brahman
The author states the reasons why such a falling off is not allow-
able thus: "On account of restriction, on account of the absence of
the forms of that", that is, on account of the restriction with regard
to the non-deviation from a stage of life, in the passages: A "student
of sacred knowledge, dwelling in the house of a teacher, exhausting
himself completely in the house of a teacher, is the third" (Chānd.
2.23.1), "One should go to the forest, thence one should not return
any more". "Having once given up the fire, one should not return any
more" (Kaṭha 5.4). The compound "on account of the absence of
the forms of that" is to be explained as follows: The word "that"
means 'not becoming that'. The words "the forms" mean scriptural
texts. Hence, the clause means: because of the absence of texts
indicative of the falling from a stage of life. That means, there are

¹ Naiṣṭhika. ² Vaikhānasa. ³ Parivrājaka.

760 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 4 40.
ADH. 10.]
no texts negativing the steady adherence to a stage of life. By the
plural (in “abhāvebhyaḥ”) other kinds of absence are to be under-
stood, viz. on account of the absence of texts indicative of descent
(from a higher stage), unlike the texts indicative of ascent (to a higher
stage), such as: “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” (Jābāla 4), on account of the absence of
any cause for such a falling off; and on account of the absence of good
custom.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Reading slightly different, viz. “niyamātad rūpābhāvebhyaḥ”.¹
Bhāskara
Reading slightly different, viz. “Jaimini” instead of “Jaimineḥ” ²
Baladeva
Reading like Śaṁkara’s. Interpretation different, viz. “But one
who has become that (viz. a nirapekṣa), there is no becoming not
that, (this is the view) of Jaimini too, on account of the restriction
(viz. that the senses of the nirapekṣa devotee are devoted to the Lord
alone and never to worldly objects), on account of the want of desire
(for anything other than Brahman), and on account of the absence (of
the life of a house-holder)”. That is, a nirapekṣa devotee never
deviates from his vow and enters worldly life.³
¹ Ś.B. 3.4.40, p. 885
² Bh. B. 3.4.39, (written as 3.4.40), p. 213.
³ G.B 3.4.40, pp. 283-284, Chap. 3

[sū. 3. 4. 41.
ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 761
SŪTRA 41
“AND NOT EVEN (THE EXPIATION) TREATED (IN THE SECTION)
ABOUT RIGHTS (IS POSSIBLE ON THE PART OF A TRANSGRESSING
HERMIT AND THE LIKE), ON ACCOUNT OF ITS INEFFECTIVENESS BY
REASON OF THE INFERENCE (I.E. SMṚTI PASSAGE) ABOUT THE
FALL.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The expiation, formulated in the section treating of rights,¹
is not possible on the part of a perpetual religious student bound by
chastity, “On account of its ineffectiveness” in his case, in conformity
with the Smṛti passage: “But the twice-born who having ascended
the state of a perpetual religious student bound by chastity deviates
therefrom,—I do not see any expiation whereby he, the slayer of
himself, may be purified” (Agni 165.23a–24b,² A. Sm. 816 ³)
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. Inadvertence (and not wilful negligence)
may be the cause of one’s deviation from the stage of life one has
reached; and expiation may entitle such a fallen one to knowledge
once more,—the author replies ‘no’.
An expiation is mentioned in the text: “A religious student
who has deviated from the vow of chastity should sacrifice an ass to
Nirṛti”. It is formulated in the sixth chapter, treating of rights,
under the aphorism: “The Avakīrṇi-paśu (sacrifice) also (is to be
performed like that (viz. the Sthapati-iṣṭi), since the time for the
installation of fire has not arrived” (Pū. Mī. Sū. 6.8.22). This is said
to be “treated (in the section) about rights”. This is not available
for one who has deviated from the vow of a perpetual religious student
bound by chastity. Why? “On account of its ineffectiveness by
reason of the inference about the fall”, i.e. because in conformity
with a Smṛti passage indicating the fall as very difficult to be atoned
for, the expiation is not effective for him. The Smṛti passage is as
follows: “But the twice-born who having ascended the state of a
¹ Pū. Mī. Sū. 6.8.22.
² Pp. 158-159. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.
³ P. 33, line 19. Reading slightly different, viz. “Yena śuddhyati kar-
maṇā”.

[SŪ. 3 4. 42.
762 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.]
perpetual religious student, bound by chastity, deviates therefrom,—
I do not see any expiation whereby he, the slayer of himself, may
be purified" (Agni 165.23a-34b, A.Sm. 8.16). The word "even"
(in the sūtra) suggests that the stated expiation is valid for a religious
student who becomes a house-holder after the completion of his study.¹
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Interpretation totally different, viz. "and (the nirapekṣa devotee
does) not (desire for) even the office (of world-rulership and the like),
on account of the inference (i.e. possibility) of fall (from such office),
(and) because (he has) no connection with those (offices)", i.e. no wish
for them.²
OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 42)
SŪTRA 42
"BUT PRECEDED BY ‘UPA’, (I.E. A MINOR SIN) EVEN, SOME (THINK
SO), (THEY CLAIM) THE EXISTENCE (OF AN EXPIATION FOR IT),
AS IN THE CASE OF EATING, THAT HAS BEEN SAID."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"But some" think that the deviation of a perpetual religious
student bound by chastity ³ from his vow of chastity is a minor sin,
and hence there is an expiation for it, since he too is equally a religious
student like one who is a religious student for a time only and not for
life ⁴, "as in the case of the taking" of intoxicating liquor. "That has
been said :” “ ‘Of the subsequent ones, what is non-contradictory.’ ” ⁵
¹ I.e. an upakurvāṇa. A naiṣṭhika remains a religious student all his life,
but an upakurvāṇa only for a time.
² G.B. 3.4.41, p. 285, Chap. 3.
³ A naiṣṭhika.
⁴ An upakurvāṇa.
⁵ R. Śk.

[sū. 3. 4. 42.
ADH 10 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 763
Vedanta-kaustubha
"Preceded by 'upa'," i e. the deviation of a perpetual religious
student and so on, bound by chastity and the rest, from their vow
of chastity by going to women and so on, is "preceded by the word
'upa'", i.e is but a minor (upa) sin (pātaka); not a major sin that
cannot be atoned for. The word "even" implies reason. "Some"
teachers think that they too being equally religious students, there
is "the existence" of an expiation for them as for those who are reli-
gious students for a time, but not always. "As in the case of eating."
Just as the prohibition with regard to the taking of spirituous liquor
and so on and the expiation thereof apply equally to those who are
religious students for life and those who are so for a time only,—so is the
case here. "That has been said" by the Smṛti-writer: "Of the subse-
quent ones, what is non-contradictory to that". The sense is that
what has been said with regard to one who is a religious student for
a time is possible in the case of one who belongs to a subsequent stage
of life, viz. one who is religious student for life and so on, in so far
as it is not contradictory to the stage of life of the latter. In this
way, an expiation for the deviation of perpetual religious students
from their vow of chastity being possible, they come to be entitled
to knowledge once again Similar is the case with the hermits belong-
ing to the third order of life and the wandering mendicants belonging
to the fourth order
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation
same.
Bhāskara
This sūtra is not found in his commentary.
Baladeva
Interpretation absolutely different, viz. "But what is preceded
by 'upa' (i.e. upāsanā or meditation) (is the only object desired by a
nirapekṣa devotee) some (branches declare so), (and) the sentiment
(of devotion) is like food (to him), that has been said (in Scripture)" ¹.
¹ G.B. 3.4.42, pp. 286-287, Chap. 3.
19

764 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 43.
ADH. 10 ]
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 43)
SŪTRA 43
"BUT (SUCH A TRANSGRESSOR IS) OUTSIDE (THE SPHERE OF KNOW-
LEDGE), IN EITHER CASE EVEN, ON ACCOUNT OF SMṚTI AND ON
ACCOUNT OF CONDUCT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Whether the deviation of perpetual religious students from their
own stage of life be a major or a minor sin, "in either case even",
they are "outside" the right to the knowledge of Brahman, "on
account of the Smṛti passage: "I do not see any expiation whereby
he, the killer of himself, may be purified" (Agni 165.24b ¹) "and on
account of the conduct" of the good
Vedānta-kaustubha
Whether the deviation of those who are bound by chastity from
their own stage of life be a major or a minor sin, "in either case even"
they are to be kept "outside" ² indeed by the good. Why? "On
account of Smṛti and on account of conduct," i.e. on account of the
Smṛti passage censuring such a deviation, viz.: "I do not see any
expiation whereby he, the killer of himself, may be purified" (Agni
165.24b), "If one sees a Brāhmaṇa who ascended (to a high stage)
has fallen (therefrom), one should undergo the Cāndrāyaṇa ³ penance";
and on account of the conduct of the good who always shun one who
has deviated from the vow of chastity. Hence it is established that
those who have deviated from their stages of life are not entitled to
the knowledge of Brahman.
Here ends the section entitled "One who has become
that" (10)
¹ Ś, R, Śk.
² Note that the interpretation of the term "bahiḥ" is different from Nim-
bārka's.
³ An expiatory penance regulated by the moon's age. The method is to
begin with taking fifteen mouthfuls of food at the full moon, and decrease it
daily by one mouthful during the dark-half, and increase by one mouthful again
during the bright-half. Vide Manu 6.20 and Kullukabhaṭṭa's commentary.
19B

[sū. 3. 4. 44.
ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 765
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets
the work “bahiḥ” like Śrīnivāsa ¹
Bhāskara
He omits the word “api” and interprets the word “bahiḥ” like
Śrīnivāsa ² This is sūtra 41 in his commentary
Baladeva
He too omits the word “api” Interpretation absolutely different,
viz “(The nirapekṣa devotee is) outside (all worldly entanglements)
in both ways, (viz.) on account of Smṛti and on account of conduct” ³
Adhikaraṇa 11: The section entitled “The
Lord”. (Sūtras 44-45)
OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 44)
SŪTRA 44
“OF THE LORD, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT
ABOUT FRUIT, SO ĀTREYA (THINKS).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The meditation based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts is
performed by the sacrificer, “so Ātreya” thinks, on account of the
scriptural statement about the result attained, viz “What alone
one does with knowledge” (Chānd. 1.1.10 ⁴).
¹ Ś.B. 3.4.43, p. 888.
² Bh. B. 3.4 41, (written as 3.4.42), p. 214.
³ G.B. 3.4.43, pp. 287-288, Chap. 3.
⁴ Not quoted by others.

766 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 45.
ADH. 11.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
The view of one who knows is acceptable, but not that of one
who does not know. Hence in the previous section the view of Jaimini
has been accepted, while that of others has been rejected. Now by
showing that the meditation on the subsidiary parts is the work of the
officiating priest, and having thereby rejected the view of one who
does not know, the author is again demonstrating that the view of
only one who knows is acceptable.
On the doubt, viz. whether the meditation on the udgītha and the
rest, the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, is the work of the sacrificer,
the Lord, or of the sacrificing priest,—"of the Lord, so" the teacher
"Ātreya" thinks. Why? "On account of the scriptural text
about fruit," i.e. because in the text: "What alone one does with
knowledge" (Chānd. 1.1.10) the result produced, viz. greater potency,
is declared to be pertaining to the sacrificer.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He too begins a new adhikaraṇa here (three sūtras), but concerned
with an entirely different topic, viz. the special favour shown by the
Lord to His nirapekṣa devotees. Hence the sūtra: "From the Lord
(arises the fulfilment of all the wants of the nirapekṣa devotee), on
account of the scriptural text about fruit, so Ātreya thinks".¹ Hence
he does not take this sūtra as representing the opponent's view.
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 45)
SŪTRA 45
"THE WORK OF THE PRIEST, SO AUḌULOMI (THINKS), BECAUSE
FOR THAT (HE) IS BOUGHT."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The meditation based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts
is performed by the officiating priest, because the priest has been
¹ G.B. 3.4.44, pp. 289-290, Chap. 3.