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

[SŪ. 3 4. 49.
774 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 13.]
The doubt is whether the action of a child, i.e. nothing but wilful
behaviour, is meant by the phrase 'childlike state', and that is to be
practised by one desirous of salvation; or whether freedom from
arrogance, pride, self-consciousness and so on are denoted by the
phrase 'childlike state' here, and these are to be practised by one
desirous of salvation. If it be suggested that 'childlike state' means
the state of a child, i e. nothing but wilful behaviour, that is to be
practised by one desirous of salvation, there being no reason for the
restriction that only freedom from arrogance and the rest are to be
practised and not simply wilful behaviour,—
We reply: "Without manifesting" one's wisdom, generated
through hearing and so on, one should desire to stay in the childlike
state, i.e. be free from arrogance and the rest. Why? "On account
of connection," i.e. because the state of freedom from arrogance and
so on alone can have any "connection" with the topic of discussion,
while wilful behaviour can have no connection whatsoever with it,
in accordance with the scriptural text: "Not one who has not refrained
from bad conduct, not one who is not tranquil, not one who is not
composed, not one who is not of peaceful mind, can obtain Him even
through intelligence" (Katha 2.24). Hence it is established that
one desirous of salvation should have 'childlike state', i.e freedom
from arrogance and the like.
Here ends the section entitled "Non-manifestation" (13).
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
Here he concludes the topic, viz. whether those who practise the
vow called Pāśupata are entitled to salvation or not. The prima facie
view is that since such people do not belong to any stage of life, they
are not so entitled. The answer is: "(Although the Pāśupata-
āśrama) does not manifest itself, (i.e. is not, a particular āśrama,
yet) owing to (its) connection (with all the requisites of the stage of
asceticism, such as, chastity and so on, it is called an 'atyāśrama'
or super-āśrama, and is the cause of salvation)"'.¹
¹ Śk. B. 3.4.49, pp. 415-416, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 50 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 775
ADH. 14.]
Baladeva
He, like Nimbārka, takes this sūtra (sūtra 50 in his commentary)
as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, but dealing with an entirely
different topic, viz. the keeping of knowledge as secret. Hence the
sūtra: "(Let one remain) without manifesting (i.e. revealing the
knowledge attained), on account of connection (i.e. tradition)".
That is, when a preceptor teaches his disciple, he should ask the
disciple to keep what he has learnt a strict secret, for such is the
tradition ¹.
Adhikaraṇa 14: The section entitled "In this
life" (Sūtra 50)
SŪTRA 50
"(THERE IS THE RISE OF KNOWLEDGE) IN THIS LIFE IF OBSTRUC-
TION BE NOT PRESENT, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT BEING SEEN."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"If obstruction" be non-existent, then there is rise of knowledge
"in this life"; if it be present, in the next, "on account of that being
declared" by the text: "Then Naciketas, having obtained the know-
ledge declared by Death" (Kaṭha 6.18 ²) and so on
Vedānta-kaustubha
Having stated the multitude of means that lead to the rise of
knowledge, the author is now considering its time.
On the doubt, viz. whether through the means, demonstrated
in the group of aphorisms ending with "Non-manifesting, on
account of connection" (Br. Sū. 3.4.49), knowledge arises in this
life or in the next,—the prima facie view is that in accordance with
the scriptural text: "Let one desirous of salvation perform sacrifices"
(Tait. Saṁ. 2.5.5 ³) and so on, people strive for only prosperity
¹ G.B. 3.4.50, pp. 299-300, Chap. 3.
² B.
³ P. 208, line 27. vol. 2.

776 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 4. 50
ADH. 14.]
in the next life, but not for the rise of knowledge, knowledge being
possible in this very life
With regard to it, we reply: “If obstruction”, i.e. if the obstruc-
tion to knowledge, viz works which are dependent on particular
place and time and are about to produce results other than knowledge,
“be not present” That is, if the group of means which lead to
knowledge be performed well, there is the rise of knowledge “in this
life”; if any obstruction to such works be present, then in the
next. Why ? “On account of that being seen,” i.e. because the rise
of knowledge is found to take place in both ways. That in the absence
of any obstruction, there is the rise of knowledge in this life is declared
by the text: “Then Naciketas, having attained the knowledge declared
by Death and this rule ¹ of the Yoga entirely, attained Brahman
and became stainless, deathless” (Kaṭha 6.18). That through the
means, practised in one life, there is the rise of knowledge in another
life is declared by the text: “Even when in the womb, Vāmadeva
perceived”. If there be a large number of obstructions, the attain-
ment of knowledge is indeed very difficult, in accordance with the
scriptural text. “He whom many, though hearing, know not” (Kaṭha
2.7). Hence it is established that the rise of knowledge takes place on
the removal of obstructions. There is no fixed rule that knowledge
arises in that very life in which the means were performed.
Here ends the section entitled “In this life” (14)
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
He reads: “Aihikam api aprastuta-pratibandhe....” ². Inter-
pretation same. This is sūtra 51 in his commentary.
Rāmānuja
He reads: “Aihikama aprastuta-pratibandhe....”. Interpreta-
tion of the word “aihikam” different, viz. “What belongs to this
¹ Our text reads “yoga-siddhi”—a mis-quotation. Correct one “Yoga-
vidhi”. Vide Kaṣha, p. 120.
² Ś.B. 3.4.51, p. 894.

[sū. 3. 4. 50.
ADH. 14.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 777
world (i.e. meditation aiming at worldly prosperity)". That is,
there are two kinds of meditation, viz. that which aims at worldly
prosperity only ("aihikam") and that which aims at final release
The former may or may not arise in this life according to the absence
or presence of obstruction ¹, and similarly there is no fixed rule with
regard to the latter also as will be shown in the next sūtra.
Bhāskara
He reads: "Aihikam aprasutam pratibandhena darśānat" Accord-
ingly the sūtra means: "(There is the rise of knowledge) in this life,
(if the works which obstruct it have) not sprung up, through (the
presence of such an) obstruction (however, there is the rise of know-
ledge in the next world), because (that) is seen".² Thus, the import
is the same as Nimbārka's This is sūtra 48 in his commentary
Śrīkaṇṭha
His reading of the sūtra is like Rāmānuja's reading. Interpreta-
tion different, i.e. he is here speaking of the time of the rise of salva-
tion and not of knowledge. Nimbārka speaks of this in the next
sūtra. Śrīkaṇṭha interprets the sūtra thus. "(The result of medita-
tion, viz. salvation, arises) in this life (i.e. as soon as the present body
ceases), if obstruction be not present, on account of that being seen".
That is, if there be no contrary karmas, then a knower attains release
as soon as he dies. But it there be such karmas, he has to be re-born
and exhaust them before he can attain release. Hence it is that even
knowers like Vāmadeva are seen to have re-births ³.
Baladeva
His reading too is like Rāmānuja's reading Interpretation
same.
¹ Śrī. B. 3.4.50, p. 398, Part 2.
² Bh. B. 3.4 48, (written as 3.4.49), p. 216.
³ Śk. B. 3.4.50, pp. 416-418, Parts 10 and 11.

778 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 4. 51.
ADH. 15 ]
Adhikaraṇa 15 · The section entitled "The
fruit, viz. salvation" (Sūtra 51)
SŪTRA 51
"SIMILARLY, (THERE IS) NON-RESTRICTION WITH REGARD TO THE
FRUIT, VIZ. SALVATION, ON ACCOUNT OF ONE HAVING THAT STATE
BEING ASCERTAINED, ON ACCOUNT OF ONE HAVING THAT STATE
BEING ASCERTAINED."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Likewise, there is "non-restriction with regard to the fruit, viz.
salvation", in accordance with the statement: "For him there is
delay so long" (Chānd. 6.14.2 ¹).
Here ends the fourth quarter of the third chapter in the Vedānta-
pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-
mīmāṁsā texts by the reverend Nimbārka.
Vedānta-kaustubha
The question as to when a seeker attains knowledge, whether
here or hereafter, has been considered above. Now, the question
as to when one who has attained knowledge and is a seeker of salvation
attains salvation is being considered.
The doubt is as to whether or not there is any universal rule
that the fruit of knowledge, viz. salvation, arises only after the knower
is freed from the body in which he has attained knowledge. The
prima facie view is as follows:—
As soon as the means are accomplished, the fruit may be attained
at that very moment; hence the fruit arises immediately after he is
freed from the body.
With regard to it, we reply: "There is non-restriction with regard
to the fruit, viz. salvation". That is, just as there is non-restriction
or no universal rule with regard to the rise of knowledge,—viz. in the
absence of obstructions, there is the rise of knowledge here; in their
presence elsewhere,—"so" there is "non-restriction" with regard
to the fruit of knowledge, viz. "salvation", belonging to one who
¹ B.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 51.
ADH. 15.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 779
has attained knowledge If the works which have begun to bear
fruits be absent, then the fruit of knowledge, viz. salvation, belonging
to the knower, arises after he is freed from the present body; but if
they be present, then after he is freed from still another body,—thus
there is no fixed rule here. Why? “On account of one having that
state being ascertained,” i.e. because the Chāndogya text: “For him
there is delay only so long as I am (i e. he is) not free, then I shall
(i e. he will)¹ attain (Brahman)” (Chānd 6.14.2) speaks of “one
having that state”, i.e. one having the state of a knower, or, one by
whom knowledge has been obtained. Hence it is established that
there is no fixed rule with regard to the fruit, viz. salvation. The
repetition of the last words indicates the completion of the chapter
Here ends the section entitled “The fruit, viz. salvation” (15).
Here ends the fourth quarter of the third chapter in the Vedānta-
kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā by the reverend
teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of the reverend
Nimbārka, the founder and the teacher of the sect of the holy
Sanatkumāra.
And this third chapter, entitled “The means”, concerned with
the discussion about the knowledge of Brahman, is completed.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
Interpretation different, viz. “Similarly, (there is) no fixed rule
with regard to the fruit, viz. salvation, on account of such a state
being ascertained (to be Brahman)”. That is, the result of know-
ledge is not subject to the same rule as the origin of knowledge. The
latter may vary, i.e. take place here or hereafter; but the former is not
subject to any variations, but is the same always, since Scripture
declares salvation to be Brahman, the UNCHANGEABLE.²
Rāmānuja
Interpretation same. He points out that just as there is no fixed
rule with regard to the rise of the fruit of that kind of meditation
¹ See V.K. 1.1.7. ² Ś.B. 3.4.51, pp. 896 ff.
20

[SŪ. 3. 4. 51.
780 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15.]
which aims at worldly prosperity (considered in the previous sūtra),
so there is no fixed rule with regard to the rise of the fruit of that of
meditation which aims at salvation.¹
Bhāskara
He interprets the first part, viz. “muktiphalāniyamaḥ” like
Nimbārka, the second part, viz “tadavasthāvadhṛteḥ” like Śaṁkara
Thus, according to him the sūtra means: although there is no fixed
rule as to whether salvation is to arise here or hereafter, yet there is
no non-fixity in the very nature of salvation, for salvation is nothing
but the state of the Highest Lord.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
Interpretation different, viz. “(There is) no fixed rule that the
fruit, viz. salvation (has grades like the fruit of karma) since (salva-
tion) is ascertained to be that condition (viz. the state of Brahman)”.
That is, salvation means attaining similarity with the Lord; hence
the Lord being the same, salvation does not vary, though there may
be gradations in the meditations.³
Résumé
The fourth quarter of the third chapter contains:
(1) 51 sūtras and 15 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka;
(2) 52 sūtras and 17 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṁkara;
(3) 51 sūtras and 15 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja;
(4) 49 sūtras and 16 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara;
(5) 51 sūtras and 17 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha;
(6) 52 sūtras and 16 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva.
Sūtra 46 in the commentaries of Śaṁkara and Baladeva is not
found in Nimbārka’s commentary.
Bhāskara takes sūtras 23 and 24 in Nimbārka’s commentary as
forming a single sūtra, and omits sūtra 42.

¹ Śrī. B. 3.4.51, p. 399, Part 2.
² Bh. B. 3.4.49, (written as 3.4.50), p. 217.
³ Śk. B. 3.4.51, pp. 418-419, Parts 10 and 11.
20B

FOURTH CHAPTER (Adhyāya)
FIRST QUARTER (Pāda)
Adhikarana 1: The section entitled "Repeti-
tion". (Sūtras 1-2)
SŪTRA 1
"REPETITION MORE THAN ONCE, ON ACCOUNT OF TEACHING."
The interpretation of the Brahma-sūtras, entitled Vedānta-
pārijāta-saurabha, composed by the reverend Nimbārka
There must be "repetition" of the means "more than once",
"on account of the teaching" of the means that lead to a direct
vision of Brahman, viz. "Should be heard, should be thought, should
be meditated on" (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6¹).
The Commentary, the holy Vedānta-kaustubha, composed by
the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa.
In the third chapter, the nature of the means were determined.
Now, in this fourth chapter, that of the fruit or the result is being
determined. Thus, in the first quarter, it will be established that the
attainment of the fruit results straight on through the steady practice
of the means. With a view to this, the means are to be repeated till
death. Further, it will be clearly shown that a knower, having
Brahman for his soul, attains salvation through the might of his
knowledge, the cause of the cessation of the prior and subsequent
works. It will also be proved that the end, viz. Brahman, is attained
when there is a complete exhaustion of works, which have begun to
bear fruits, by retributive experiences. In the second quarter,
problems like the departure of a knower from the body and so on will
be considered. In the third quarter, those of his going through the
path beginning with light will be discussed. In the fourth quarter,
the real nature and attributes of one, who has attained Brahman
and has his real nature manifest, will be determined. Now, first
of all, the author points out that the means are to be practised more
than once.
¹ Ś, R, Bh.
( 781 )

[SŪ. 4. 1. 1.
782 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.]
The doubt is as to whether the means leading to a direct vision
of Brahman, mentioned in scriptural texts like: "‘ "O ! the self is to be
seen, to be heard, to be thought, to be meditated on. ‘It is to be sought
for, it is to be enquired into’ " ’ (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6), "Knowing him alone,
one passes beyond death, there is no other way to salvation" (Śvet.
3.8, 6.15), "The knower of Brahmar attains the highest" (Tait. 2.1)
and so on, are to be practised once, or are to be repeated more than
once. With regard to it, the prima facie view is that they are to be
performed once, there being no evidence for a repetition more than
once.
With regard to this, we reply: "Repetition", i.e. there must be
a repetition, more than once, of the means leading to a direct vision
of Brahman. Why? "On account of teaching," i.e. on account of
the teaching of meditation, the means to a direct vision of Brahman,
which teaching is preceded by that of hearing of and reflecting on
the scriptural texts. The purport is this: The real knowledge of the
meaning of texts cannot be attained, through a mere hearing of the
scriptural texts only once, even on the part of men like Śvetaketu,
the meaning of the Vedānta-texts being very difficult to be under-
stood; otherwise, the repetition of the text: "Thou art that" (Chānd.
6.8.7, etc. 1) would have been meaningless. For this very reason,
texts like: "Whom they do not know, though hearing" (Kaṭha 2.7 2)
and so on are not without meaning. For this very reason, considering
that no understanding of the meaning of the Vedānta-texts is possible
through a mere hearing of those texts in accordance with the injunc-
tion about Vedic study, His Holiness composed this treatise. Thus,
in the text: "‘ "O ! the self is to be seen’ " ’ (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6) the teaching:
'to be heard', aiming at a direct vision of Brahman, indicates that
there is hearing more than once. If the direct vision of Brahman
be attainable through a mere hearing of the scriptural texts about
Brahman, celebrated in the passages: "From whom, verily, all these
beings arise" (Tait. 3.1), "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait.
2.1) and so on, then the teaching "should be heard" (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6)
becomes futile. Exactly similar is the teaching: "Should be thought"
(Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6), i.e. the teaching about thinking which means
1 Repeated nine times. Vide Chānd. 6.8.7 ff.
2 Correct quotation: "Śṛṇvanto' pi vahavo yaṃ na vidyuḥ". Vide Kaṭha,
pp. 35-36.

[sū. 4. 1. 2.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 783
constantly reflecting on Reality. After that there is the teaching
about meditation, viz. “Should be meditated on” (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5 6),
i.e. the teaching of meditation, which means an unbroken perception
of Brahman, the object of hearing and thinking, and is the special
cause of a direct vision of Him. On account of such a teaching,
when the meditation on Brahman is practised more than once, then
alone there is, through Brahman’s grace, a direct vision of Him, in
accordance with the scriptural text: “But then he, meditating, sees
him who is without part” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva
They all connect the word “asakṛt” (more than one) with the
word “updeśāt” and not with the word “āvṛtti”. That is, according
to them, the means are to be repeated because Scripture teaches
them more than once, i.e. repeatedly.¹
SŪTRA 2
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF INFERENTIAL MARK.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
And on account of the Smṛti passage: “‘By force of practice,
desire to attain me, O Dhanañjaya’” (Gītā 12.9 ²).
Vedānta-kaustubha
An inferential mark means Smṛti. There are Smṛti passages to
this effect, such as “‘But through repetition O son of Kuntī!’”
(Gītā 6.35), “‘Desire to attain me, O Dhanañjaya’” (Gītā 12.9),
“Viṣṇu is to be remembered always, and should never be forgotten.
Let all injunctions and prohibitions be subordinate to these two”
1 Ś.B. 4.1.1, p. 900, Bh. B 4.1.1, p. 218, G.B. 4.1.1.
2 Correct quotation: “abhyāsa-yogena”. Not quoted by others.

784 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 3.
ADH. 2]
and so on. Hence it is established that the means to a direct vision
of Brahman are to be repeated more than once.
Here ends the section entitled “Repetition” (1).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He omits the “ca”.
Adhikaraṇa 2. The section entitled “Medita-
tion under the aspect of Self”. (Sūtra 3)
SŪTRA 3
“BUT ‘THE SELF’—SO (THEY ADMIT AND MAKE OTHERS) UNDER-
STAND”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“This is my self” (Chānd. 3.14 3, 4¹)—so the previous teachers
“admit” “This is your self” (Bṛh. 3 4.1, etc.²), so they teach the
disciples. Hence the Highest Person is to be meditated on by one
desirous of salvation as one’s own self.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the immediately adjoining section, it has been shown that
the means are to be practised more than once. This suggests an
absolute difference between the knower and the object known. Now
we hasten to remove this misconception.
The doubt is as to whether the object to be known, viz. Brahman,
is to be meditated on as different from the knower or as the self of
the knower? With regard to it, the prima facie view is: As different.
Why? For the following reasons: First, the self, being within the
range of the perception of the ‘I’, is easily knowable. Secondly, the
means are, on the contrary, enjoined to be repeated more than once
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
¹ Ś. 2 Ś. R. Bh.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 3.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 785
for knowing the self in question. Thirdly, there are a great many
scriptural and Smṛti texts as well as aphorisms teaching a fundamental
difference between Brahman and the individual soul like: "And on
account of the designation of difference" (Br. Sū 1 1.18), "But
something more, on account of the indication of difference" (Br Sū.
2 1.21) and so on In this way, such a difference between Brahman
and the individual soul being established by the direct evidence of
one’s own realization, as well as by Scripture, no other supposition
is to be made, in accordance with the condemnatory statement: "He
who supposes the self to be otherwise than what it really is,—what
sin is not committed by him, the thief, the stealer of his own self?"
With regard to it, we reply: "But 'the self'—so (they) admit",
since the Highest self is the whole of which the individual self is a
part and since the former is the very soul of the latter, which can
have no existence and activity independently of Him, just as the
thousand-rayed sun, having independent existence and activity in
contrast to its own rays, is their soul, and the rays are non-different
from it. Similarly, the Lord should be known to be non-different
from the individual souls.
The word "but" indicates clearly the difference in nature between
the individual soul and the Highest self, the non-knowing and the all-
knowing. The relation of identity is possible between two things
when they are non-different in some way or other. No identity is
possible between a cow and a horse. Again, identity is not possible
in the case of a single horse also. But there is a relation of identity
between the effect and its cause, the attribute and its substratum,
the power and its possessor,—i.e only between two things which are
both different and non-different. Otherwise, in accordance with the
text: "All this, verily, is Brahman" (Chānd. 3.14.1), the universe,
consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, must be non-different
from Brahman in nature, which is impossible.
Hence, the Lord is the soul of the meditating devotee,—a part
of Brahman and different, indeed, from Him in nature,—as the tree
is of the leaf, the substratum of light of light, the chief vital-breath
of the sense-organs. Hence, both difference and non-difference are
equally fundamental and natural. Thus, alone, texts like: "Thou art
me, O lord Deity! I am 'Thou'" and so on can have a meaning.
For this very reason, again, the non-difference of the individual soul
from Brahman being established,—as of the leaf from the tree, light

786 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 4.
ADH. 3.]
from its substratum,—texts like: "He who worships another deity,
(thinking:) 'The Deity is one, I arother', does not know, like a beast"
(Bṛh. 1.4.10) and so on, too, fit in. Since between Brahman and the
individual soul there is a non-difference of this kind which is not in
conflict with difference, there is no contradiction of scriptural and Smṛti
passages and aphorisms like: "The conscious among the conscious"
(Kaṭha 5.13; Śvet. 6.13), "'And I am superior to the imperishable as
well'" (Gītā 15.18), "But on account of the teaching of something
more" (Br. Sū. 3.4.8), "Not the other, on account of inappropriate-
ness" (Br. Sū 1.1.17) and so on, the relation of difference-non-
difference between the two being approved by all Scriptures. Hence
"This is my self" (Chānd. 3.14.3, 4), "This is the inter soul of all
beings" (Muṇḍ. 2.1.14),—so the previous teachers admit "This is
your soul, within all" (Bṛh 3.4 1, 2; 3.5.1), "This is your self, the
inner controller, immortal" (Bṛh. 3.7.3, etc.), "'All this has that for
its soul . . . Thou art that'" (Chānd. 6.8.7) and so on,—so they
teach their disciples the very same thing. In accordance with the
Smṛti passage as well, viz. "'I am the soul, O thick-haired one!
dwelling within the heart of all beings'" (Gītā 10.20), "'Know me also
as the knower of the field'" ¹ (Gītā. 13.2), it is established that the
Highest Person is to be meditated or as one's own self.
Here ends the section entitled "Meditation under the aspect of
self" (2).
Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled "The Sym-
bol". (Sūtras 4-5)
SŪTRA 4
"NOT IN A SYMBOL, FOR THAT (IS) NOT (THE SELF)."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
But the self is not to be sought for "in a symbol"; "that" is
"not" the self of the meditating devotee.
¹ I.e. the individual soul, the knower of the body.

[sū. 4. 1. 5.
adh. 3.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 787
Vedānta-kaustubha
Now the author points out that similarly, the self is not to be
sought for in a symbol.
With regard to the meditations on symbols, such as, "Let one
meditate on the mind as Brahman" (Chānd. 3.18.1), "He who medi-
tates on name as Brahman" (Chānd 7 1.5) and so on, the doubt is
as to whether the self is to be sought for in symbols or not. What is
reasonable, to begin with? If it be suggested: It is to be done so
indeed, symbolic meditations too being equally meditations on
Brahman.
We reply: The self is not to be sought for "in a symbol", since
"that", i.e. the symbol, is not the soul of the meditating devotee,
seeing that symbols like the mind and the rest are to be meditated on
under the aspect of Brahman.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
The interpretation of the clause: 'na hi sah" different, viz. "for
he (i.e. the meditating devotee) does not (look upon the symbol as his
self)".¹
Baladeva
He omits the word "sah".²
Bhāskara
He omits the first "na" ³
SŪTRA 5
"THE VIEW OF BRAHMAN, ON ACCOUNT OF SUPERIORITY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
The viewing of the mind and the rest as Brahman is indeed proper,
but not the viewing of Brahman as the mind and the rest, "on account
of the superiority" of Brahman.
1 Ś.B. 4.1.4, p. 908. ² Bh. B. 4.1.4, p. 221.
3 G.B. 4.1.4, p. 4, Chap. 4.

788 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 6.
ADH. 4.]
Vedānta-kaustubha
To the objection, viz. In the above cases, let Brahman alone be
the object to be meditated on, viewed as the mind and so on,—the
author replies:
The mind, name and so on are to be viewed as Brahman. Why?
“On account of superiority,” i.e. on account of Brahman’s superiority
to the mind, name and the rest. But Brahman is not to be viewed
as the mind, name and the rest. Just as to view a minister as the
king is proper, but not the king as a minister, so is the case here.
Hence it is established that the self is not to be sought for in a symbol.
Here ends the section entitled “The Symbol” (3).
COMPARISON
Baladeva
He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself,
concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. “The view of Brahman
(is to be super-imposed upon the Lord), on account of superiority
(of such a meditation)”. That is, just as the Lord is to be meditated
on as the self of the devotee, so He is to be meditated on as Brahman
as well, i.e as possessed of great attributes and powers, since such
a meditation is the highest of all.¹
Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled “The ideas
of the sun and the rest”. (Sūtra 6)
SŪTRA 6
“AND THE IDEAS OF THE SUN AND THE REST (ARE TO BE SUPER-
IMPOSED) ON THE SUBSIDIARY PART, ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATE-
NESS.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
With regard to the meditations, viz. “Verily, he who shines, let
one meditate on him as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.3.1 ²) and so on, “the
¹ G.B. 4.1.5, p. 7, Chap. 4. ² Ś. R Bh. ŚK.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 6
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 789
ideas of the sun and the rest" are to be super-imposed on the udgītha
and so on, on account of the superiority of the sun, etc.
Vedānta-kaustubha
Certain meditations, based on the subsidiary parts, are mentioned
in Scripture thus: "Verily, he who is the sun, let one meditate on him
as the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.3.1) and so on. Here, on the suggestion
that on account of the superiority of the udgītha and the rest,—as
the subordinate parts of sacrificial acts which are means to an end,—
to the sun, etc., which lead to no end, the ideas of the udgītha, etc.,
are to be super-imposed on the sun and so on—the author now states
the correct conclusion.
"The ideas of the sun and the rest," i.e. the views of the sun and
the rest alone, are to be super-imposed "on the subsidiary parts",
i.e. on the subordinate members of sacrificial acts. Why? "On
account of appropriateness," i.e. because the superiority of the sun
and the rest is appropriate. When the udgītha and the rest are
ceremoniously purified by being viewed as the sun, etc., then alone can
the sacrificial acts come to produce results. Hence the superiority of
the sun and the rest stands to reason. So it is established that the
view of the sun, etc., is to be super-imposed on the udgītha and the rest.
Here ends the section entitled "The ideas of the sun and the
rest" (4).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
He reads "aṅgeṣu" instead of "aṅge".¹
Baladeva
He too takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, but,
as usual, concerned with an entirely different topic, thus: "The ideas
of the sun and the rest (as generating from the eyes of the Lord and
¹ Ś. B. 4.1.6, p. 9, Chap 4

790 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 7.
ADH. 5.]
so on, should be super-imposed) on the limb (of the Lord), on account
of appropriateness". That is, the Lord is to be contemplated on as
producing the sun from His eyes and so on.¹
Adhikarana 5: The section entitled "Sitting".
(Sūtras 7-11)
SŪTRA 7
"SITTING, ON ACCOUNT OF POSSIBILITY."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
One should practise meditation "sitting" only, since meditation
is possible only on the part of one who is sitting.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been proved above that meditation, the special cause of a
direct vision of Brahman, is to be repeated more than once. Now,
the problem is being considered as to whether it is to be practised
somehow without following any restrictive rule, or only in a sitting
posture.
On the doubt, viz. whether there is no restrictive rule how medita-
tion is to be practised,—whether in a sitting posture, as lying down,
walking or standing still; or whether there is a restrictive rule that it is
to be practised in a sitting posture alone,—if the prima facie view
be that there being no cause for such a restriction, there is no restric-
tion,—
We reply: "sitting". Why? "On account of possibility,"
i.e. because meditation is possible on the part of a devotee who is
sitting. One who is lying down may fall asleep, while one who is
walking or standing still may have his attention diverted owing to
his effort for holding the body up and so on, and as such no meditation
is possible on their part.
¹ G.B. 4.1.6, p. 9, Chap. 4.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 8-9.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 791
SŪTRA 8
“AND ON ACCOUNT OF CONTEMPLATION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Meditation being of the form of contemplation, it is to be carried
on in a sitting posture alone.
Vedānta-kaustubha
“And” meditation being of the form of contemplation, as evident
from the text: “Should be meditated on” (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6); and
contemplation, consisting of a continuous stream of ideas having the
form of the object contemplated, being possible only on the part of a
contemplating devotee who is sitting, there can be no question as to
the propriety of the above restrictive rule,—this is the sense.
SŪTRA 9
“AND WITH REFERENCE TO IMMOBILITY.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
In the text: “The earth contemplates, as it were” (Chānd.
7.6.1 ¹), the word ‘contemplates’ has been used “with reference to
(its) immobility”. Hence one should practise meditation in a sitting
posture only.
Vedānta-kaustubha
In the scriptural text: “The earth contemplates, as it were. The
heaven contemplates, as it were. Water contemplates, as it were.
The mountains contemplate, as it were” (Chānd. 7.6.1), the term
‘contemplates’ has been used “with reference to the immobility”
of the earth and the rest. On account of this indicatory mark too,
meditation, having the form of contemplation, knowing and so on,
is to be practised in a sitting posture alone.
1 Ś. R. Bh. ŚK. B.

792 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 10-11.
ADH. 5.]
SŪTRA 10
“AND SMRTIS DECLARE ”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“And the Smṛti texts declare”: “Having placed in a clean
spot” (Gītā 6.11 ¹) and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
“And Smṛti texts declare” that contemplation is possible only
on the part of one who is sitting, thus: “Having placed, on a clean
spot, one’s steady seat that is neither very high nor very low and
consists of a cloth, deer-skin, and kuśa-grass, one over the other;
having sat there on the seat, concentrating one’s mind and with the
functions of the mind and sense-organs controlled, let one practise
deep meditation for the purification of his self” (Gītā 6.11) and so on.
―――
SŪTRA 11
“WHERE CONCENTRATION (IS POSSIBLE) THERE, ON ACCOUNT OF
NON-SPECIFICATION.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
“Where” concentration of the mind is possible “there” one
should practise meditation, there being no mention in Scripture of a
special place and the rest over and above this.
Vedānta-kaustubha
“Where,” i.e. in whatever place, time and so on, “concentra-
tion” of the mind is possible, “there” meditation is to be practised,
there being no mention in Scripture of a special place, time and so on.
“In a clean level spot; free from pebbles, fire and sand; favourable to
the mind by reason of sound, pond and so on; but not hurtful to
―――
¹ Op cit

[sū. 4. 1. 12.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 793
the eye; full of caves and free from wind,—let one apply one's self
(to meditation)" (Śvet 2.10),—this text of the Śvetāśvataras also
speaks of a place favourable to the concentration of the mind, but
not of any special place and so on, as evident from the concluding
phrase: 'favourable to the mind'. Hence, it is established that
meditation is to be carried on in a sitting posture.
Here ends the section entitled "Sitting" (5).
Adhikaraṇa 6: The section entitled "Until
death". (Sūtra 12)
SŪTRA 12
"UNTIL DEATH, FOR THERE ALSO (IT) IS SEEN."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Meditation is to be carried on "until death", since "there also"
that "is seen" in the text: "Verily, having stayed thus as long as he
lives" (Chānd. 8.15.1 ¹) and so on.
Vedānta-kaustubha
It has been stated above that the means are to be practised
repeatedly. Now, the duration of meditation is being considered.
On the doubt, viz. whether meditation, denoted by the terms
'contemplation', 'knowing' and so on, is to be finished within a short
time, or is to be continued till the fall of the body,—if it be suggested
that it is to be finished within a short time, that much being sufficient
to satisfy the demands of the scriptural texts which teach repetition
more than one,—
We reply: "Until death". Meditation is to be continued unin-
terruptedly until death. The word "for" states the reason for this:
That there is the continuance of the thought of the object to be medi-
tated on "there also", i.e. during that period (viz. from the beginning
till death), "is seen", i.e. declared by the scriptural text: "Now, verily,
1 R ŚK.