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

[SŪ. 3. 3. 50. 690 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 20.] Vedānta-kaustubha "On account of what is subsequent" to the section concerned with the fires piled up by the mind and so on, viz. the section concerned with world which is filled, beginning "This world, verily, is piled up by the fire (Śat. Br. 10 5 4, 1), and on account of the preceding section,— implied by the term "and" (in the sūtra)—, beginning. "This orb that shines" (Sat. Br. 10 5 2, 1), the "text", i.e. the section coming between them, is "of that kind", i.e. concerned with an injunction about meditation. That is, on account of its association with a pre- ceding and a subsequent sections which have meditation for their primary topic, here too there is the primacy of meditation,—that is what it comes to. To this objection, viz. If in this section, there be the primacy of meditation, then what is the sense in beginning with action?— (the author) replies "On account of majority". That is, "on account of the majority" or numerosity of the details of the fire built up by action to be accomplished (mentally) in the case of the fires which are the subsidiary parts of meditation, there is the "connection", i.e. setting forth, of the fires, the subsidiary parts of meditation, after the fires which are subsidiary parts of action. Hence it is established that the fires piled up by the mind and the rest are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Here ends the section entitled "The majority of indicatory marks" (20). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 54 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the grace of the Lord. The prima facie view is that it cannot be said that the direct vision of the Lord alone, attainable through devotion 1, in the cause of salvation, for a text in the Mundaka (Muṇḍ. 3.2 3 2) shows that the vision of the Lord depends on the grace of the Lord. 1 Vide G.B. 3.3.49 above. 2 "Nāyamātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ", etc.

[sū. 3. 3. 51. ADH. 21 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 691 The answer is: “On account of what follows (i e. the immediately following text ¹), the being of that kind of the word (is established), (there is) the mention (of grace in the passage), on the other hand, on account of preponderance (i.e. because the grace of the Lord is the most predominating factor in attaining salvation)”. That is, the Muṇḍaka-text does imply that devotion is the cause of a direct vision of the Lord, and the latter a cause of emancipation, for the grace or choice by the Lord is not arbitrary, but is determined by the devotion of men ² Adhikaraṇa 21: The section entitled “Exist- ence in the body”. (Sūtras 51-52) PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 51) SŪTRA 51 “SOME (HOLD THAT THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS TO BE MEDITATED ON IN ITS STATE OF BONDAGE), ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXISTENCE (OF SUCH A SOUL) IN THE BODY.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha At the time of meditation, the individual soul is to be meditated on in its state of bondage, on account of the existence of such a soul alone “in the body”—so “some” (think). Vedānta-kaustubha Immediately above, an investigation has been undertaken into the fires piled up by the mind and so on as forming subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Now, the question is being considered, viz. in what form is the individual soul too, entitled to its fruit, to be sought for at the time of meditation ? The doubt is as to whether at the time of meditation, the individual soul is to be conceived of simply in its state of bondage,—i.e. in the form of a knower, a doer, an enjoyer and the rest,—or in its state of 1 “Nāyamātmā vala-hīnena labhyah”, etc. 2 G.B. 3.3.54, pp. 214 ff., Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 51. 692 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 21.] salvation, i.e. in its real nature, characterized by the manifested attributes of freedom from sins and the rest. With regard to it "some" think that it is to be conceived of in its state of bondage alone, i e. in the form of a knower and the rest. Why? On account of the non- existence "in the body", at that time, "of the soul" in its state of salvation, i.e. in its real nature as characterized by freedom from sins and so on. Or else, (an alternative explanation:) on account of the existence of such a soul alone, i.e. of the soul in its state of bondage. ¹ COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 53 in the commentary of Śaṃkara and 52 in that of Bhāskara. They take this adhikaraṇa to be concerned with a different problem, viz the relation between the soul and the body. This sūtra sets forth the opponent's view, viz. the view of the Cārvākas, that the soul is nothing but the body, since consciousness is found only when the body is present, and not found when it is absent. Hence, the sūtra: "Some (maintain the non-difference) of the soul (from the body), on account of the existence (of consciousness) if there be the body".² Baladeva This is sūtra 55 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the worship of the Lord in the different parts of the body. Hence the sūtra: "Some (recommend the worship) of the soul (viz the Lord) in the body, on account of the existence (of the Lord there)". That is, the Lord is to be worshipped in the different parts of the body, such as, the stomach, the heart, the top of the head and so on, since He exists in these places also and gives salvation to the devotee.³ ¹ Note that while Nimbārka reads only "bhāvāt", Śrīnivāsa reads both "abhāvāt" and "bhābāt". ² Ś.B. 3.3.53, pp. 838–840; Bh. B. 3.3.52 (written as 3.3.53), pp. 195-196. ³ G.B. 3.3.55, pp. 218-219, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 52. ADH. 21 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 693 CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 52) SŪTRA 52 “BUT (THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS TO BE MEDITATED ON IN ITS STATE OF RELEASE) DIFFERENT (FROM ITS STATE OF BONDAGE, AND) NOT (IN ITS STATE OF BONDAGE), BECAUSE OF BECOMING OF THAT NATURE, AS IN THE CASE OF REALIZATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha ¹At the time of meditation, the individual soul is to be conceived of in its freed state, different from its state of bondage,—since during release, it is to become of that very form, just as one attains the Highest Self in accordance with meditation. Vedānta-kaustubha With regard to it, we reply: The word “but” implies emphasis. The individual soul is not to be conceived of simply in its state of bondage, i.e. simply in its form of a knower, a doer and so on. On the contrary, it is the real nature of the soul, in its state of release, possessed of the manifested attributes of freedom from sins and so on, and possessed of the attri- butes of being a knower and so on, which is “different” from its nature in its state of bondage, that is to be conceived of at the time of meditation. Why? “Because of becoming of that nature,” i.e. because during the state of release, the soul becomes “of that nature”, i.e. of the nature of its real form, conceived, in accordance with Scripture, at the time of meditation,² “As in the case of realiza- tion”. That is, just as there is the realization of Brahman in accord- ance with meditation, so is the case here, as declared by the scriptural texts: “As the purpose of man is in this world, so will he be on depart- ing” (Chānd. 3.14.1). “Howsoever he meditates on him, such alone he becomes” (Śat. Br. 10.5.2, 20 ³). Hence it is established that during ¹ The C.S.S. ed. adds “Tan na”—“that is not so”, p. 68. ² I.e. the form which is meditated on during bondage is the form which is attained later on during salvation. ³ P. 725, line 13. Cf. a very similar passage in Mudg. 3, p. 384, lines 8-9.

694 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 3. 52. ADH. 21.] the state of realization, the individual soul is to be conceived of in its state of release. Here ends the section entitled “Existence in the body” (21). COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 54 in the commentary of Śaṃkara, sūtra 53 in that of Bhāskara. Here they answer the Cārvāka view that the soul is identical with the body. They interpret the sūtra in the same way, only Śaṃkara reads: “tad-bhāvābhāvitvāt”, instead of “tad-bhāva- bhāvitvāt”. Thus, according to him, the sūtra means: “(The soul is) different (from the body), not (identical) because the existence (of consciousness) does not depend on the existence of that (viz. the body), as in the case of perception”. That is, consciousness is not a quality of the body, since even where the body is present, there may be no consciousness, e.g. in the case of a dead body. Hence just as perception is other than the object perceived, so consciousness is other than the conscious body.¹ According to Bhāskara, the sūtra means : “(The soul is) different (from the body) not (identical) because the existence of (the qualities of the body) depend on the existence of that (viz. the body), as in the case of perception”. That is, consciousness cannot be an attribute of the body, since an attribute of the body exists when the body exists. But consciousness does not exist always when the body does, e.g. in a dead body.² Hence the two explanations are identical in spite of the difference of reading. Bhāskara's reading is prefer- able. Rāmānuja Interpretation same, only the phrase “upalabdhivat” interpreted differently, viz. just as the realization of Brahman, enjoined in Scrip- ture, means the realization of His real form, so exactly, self-realization too means the realization of the real form of the self.³ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.54, p. 840. ² Bh. B. 3.3.53 (written as 3 3.54), p. 196. ³ Śrī. B. 3.3.52, p. 337, vol. 2.

[sū. 3. 3. 53 ADH. 22.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 695 Baladeva This is sūtra 56 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (three sūtras), concerned with an absolutely different topic, viz. different kinds of realizations in accordance with the different kinds of devotion. Hence the sūtra: “(During release, there is) no (percep- tion of the Lord as possessed of the attributes) other (than those with which He was meditated upon in this life), on account of the existence (of the Lord) as having that nature (i e. attributes) (during release), as in the case of knowledge”. That is, when a man, conceiv- ing a thing in a particular form, meditates on it as such, he obtains that thing in that particular form. Similarly, the devotees who meditates on the Lord as the Sweet, realizes Him as such during release; and who meditates on Him as the Majestic, realizes Him as such.¹ Adhikaraṇa 22: The section entitled “Connected with the subsidiary parts”. (Sūtras 53-54) SŪTRA 53 “BUT (THE MEDITATIONS) CONNECTED WITH THE SUBSIDIARY PARTS, (ARE) NOT (RESTRICTED) TO (PARTICULAR) BRANCHES, FOR (THEY BELONG) TO EACH VEDA.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The meditations connected with the subsidiary parts of (sacrifices) like the udgītha, enjoined in the passage: “Let one meditate on this syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1 ²) and so on, do not rest upon (their own) branches ³, but are connected with “each Veda”, i.e. with all the branches ⁴, on account of the non-specification of the scriptural text about the udgītha. ¹ G.B. 3.3.56, p. 221, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh. ³ C.S.S. ed. reads “Sva-śākhāsu”, p. 68. ⁴ C.S.S. ed. reads “Kutaḥ”. Op cit.

696 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 53, ADH. 22.] Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out above that at the time of meditation, the particular form (which the individual soul has) at that time should be disregarded, and (its) special form, as characterized by the mani- fested (attributes) of freedom from sins and so on, is to be conceived of. Similarly, here too, since a particular form can accomplish the end, the meditations may rest upon the particular forms of the ud- gītha and the rest, i.e. be based on them, in whatever special forms these udgītha and the rest are mentioned in whatever particular branches with whatever special accents,—this doubt (the author) dispels now by stating his own view. The doubt is as to whether the meditations, founded on the sub- sidiary parts of sacrificial acts like the udgītha and the rest, such as: "Let one meditate on this syllable 'Om' as the udgītha" (Chānd, 1.1.1), "Let one meditate on the five-fold sāman in the worlds'. (Chānd. 2.1.1), " 'Hymn, hymn', people say. The hymn is, forsooth, the earth" (Ait. Ār. 2.1.2 1), "This world, verily, is the piled up fire" (Śat. Br. 10.5.4, 1 2) and so on, enjoined in all the branches of all the Vedas, are based on those particular forms of the udgītha and the rest in which they are read in those particular branches in those special accents, or are connected with the udgītha and the rest contained in all the branches. Here the prima facie view is that on account of proximity, they are based on those particular forms of the udgītha and the rest in which these udgītha and the rest are read in those particular branches in those special accents, but are not connected with the udgītha and the rest presented in a different branch. With regard to this, (the author) states the correct conclusion: "Connected with the subsidiary parts". The word "but" is meant for rejecting the prima facie view. Those meditations, "connected with the subsidiary parts", i.e. founded on the subordinate members of sacrifices, do not rest on the udgītha and the rest belonging to their own branches, but are connected with "each Veda", i.e. with the udgīthas and the rest represented in all the branches. The word "for" implies the reason, i.e. because in spite of the difference of the forms of the udgītha and the rest resulting from the difference of accents and so on, the scriptural text about the udgītha, viz "Let one meditate 1 P. 101. 2 P. 798, line 17.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 54. ADH 22.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 697 on the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.1.1) and so on, lays down no specification, and thereby proximity is set aside COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 57 in his commentary. Here he illustrates the doctrine that the Lord is realized differently by different devotees in accordance with the kind of devotion with which they worship Him Hence the sūtra: "But (the priests) are restricted to (particular) parts (of the sacrifice), (but are not appointed) to (all the) branches (of it), because (the parts are regulated) according to each Veda". That is, when a man is about to perform a sacrifice, he chooses several priests, all of whom are able to perform all the parts of it, and appoints them to certain offices And, the priests, so appointed by their master, must perform only the portions allotted to them, and not the others, and receive the fee accordingly. Similarly, it is the will of the Lord which determines which particular path of devotion a soul should follow, 1.e. whether they should meditate on Him as the Sweet, or as the Majestic,—and realize Him accordingly.¹ SŪTRA 54 "OR, AS IN THE CASE OF THE SACRED FORMULÆ AND THE LIKE, (THERE IS) NO CONTRADICTION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "As in the case of the sacred formulæ" like: "Thou art a cock" (M. Saṃ. 1.1.6 ²), or as in the case of preliminary offerings, there is "no contradiction" in applying meditations mentioned in one place to other places. Vedānta-kaustubha There is "no contradiction" in connecting meditations, set forth in one place, with the udgītha and the rest, set forth else- where, "as in the case of the sacred formulæ and the like." The G.B. 3.3.57, pp. 221-222, Chap 3. ² P. 6, line 14. Ś, Bh.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 55. 698 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 23.] word "or" means 'and,' i.e. and just as the sacred formula which accompanies the taking of the stone for grinding the rice, viz. "Thou art a cock" (M. Saṃ. 1 1.6), mentioned in one place, is applicable in other places as well, so is the case here. By the words "and the like", it is meant that just as the preliminary offerings, mentioned in one place, are applicable in other places also (so is the case here). Hence, it is established that the meditations founded on the sub- ordinate members (of sacrifices) like the udgītha and the rest, mentioned in one place, are connected with the udgītha and the rest, mentioned elsewhere. Here ends the section entitled "Connected with the subsidiary parts" (22). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 58 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic, viz. the different modes of worshipping the Lord, by giving a second illustration, thus: "Or, as in the case of the sacred formulæ and the rest, (there is) no contradiction", that is, just as some formulæ are employed in many ceremonies,—some in two, some in one only,— so some men worship the Lord in several ways, i.e. with mixed sentiments or devotion, some only in one.¹ Adhikaraṇa 23: The section entitled "The superiority of the plentitude". (Sūtra 55) SŪTRA 55 "(THERE IS) SUPERIORITY OF THE PLENTITUDE, AS IN THE CASE OF A SACRIFICE, FOR THUS (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha With regard to the Vaiśvānara-vidyā ², the meditation on the aggregate is commended, just as there is a single performance of the ¹ G.B. 3.3.58, pp. 222-223, Chap. 3. ² See under Br. Sū. 3.3.31.

[sū. 3. 3. 55. · ADH 23.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 699 Paurṇa-māsa sacrifice and the rest together with the subsidiary parts. Thus, the scriptural text : ‘“Your head would have fallen off if you had not come to me”’ (Chānd. 5.12.2 ¹), designating the fault involved in the meditation on each limb, shows the excellence of the meditation on the aggregate. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out above that in accordance with scriptural statements, meditations mentioned in one place are applicable to other places. Why should we not, then, meditate on the parts in the Vaiśvānara-vidyā, in accordance with scriptural statement ?—To this objection (the author) replies. In the Vaiśvānara-vidyā, from the questions and answers of the six sages, viz. Prācīnaśāla and the rest and king Kekaya, we learn of a meditation on the Vaiśvānara (or the Universal Soul) in its separate aspect, viz. the heavenly world, the sun, the wind, the ether, the earth,—as well as in its aggregative aspect. Here the doubt is, viz. whether one should meditate on the separate parts or on the aggregate. On the suggestion that in accordance with the scriptural texts laying down an injunction regarding the meditation on the separate parts, one should meditate on the separate parts,— We reply: There is “superiority”, i.e. excellence, “of the plenti- tude,” i.e. of the meditation on the aggregate alone, and not of the meditations on the separate parts,—since the object to be meditated on being Vaiśvānara alone, having (different) limbs like the heaven as its head and so on, the beginning and the end form a connected whole. “As in the case of a sacrifice.” That is, just as the single performance of sacrifices like Paurṇa-māsa and the rest in their entirety is intended to be designated, but not of the separate parts like the preliminary offerings and the rest, so is the case here also. “For,” the scriptural text, designating the fault involved in the medita- tion on the separate parts, viz. : ‘“Your head would have fallen off had you not come to me”’ (Chānd. 5.12.2), ‘“You would have become blind had you not come to me”’ (Chānd. 5.13.2) and so on, “shows” “thus”, i.e. that the meditation on the aggregate alone is to be undertaken and not meditation on the separate parts. It is not to be said also that (on the above view) the texts enjoining meditating on the separate parts will become meaningless, ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk. 15

[SŪ. 3. 3. 55. 700 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 23.] viz. those beginning with the question of the king: " 'Auhamanyava, whom do you worship as the soul?' 'The heaven alone, O reverend king.' He said: 'The brightly shining one whom you worship as the soul is verily the universal soul' " (Chānd 5.12.1 ¹) and so on,—since as it is the meditation on the aggregate which is to be enjoined through the explanatory reiterations of the meditations on the separate parts, those texts are concerned with explanatory reiterations only. More- over, having rejected the meditation on the separate parts, Scripture mentions the result of the meditation on the aggregate only thus: "He eats food in all the worlds, in all beings, in all selves" (Chānd. 5 18.1). Hence, it is established that the meditation on the aggregate alone is to be undertaken Here ends the section entitled "The superiority of the plentitude" (23) COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 59 in his commentary He takes it as forming an adhikarana by itself, concerned with an altogether different topic, viz. the meditation on the Lord as possessed of the attribute of plurality or manifoldness. Hence the sūtra: "On account of the pre-eminence of (the attribute of) muchness, (the Lord is to be meditated on as possessed of this attribute), as in the case of a sacrifice, for thus (Scripture, i.e. Chānd. 7.2.3, 1) shows". That is, just as a sacrifice is a sacrifice even when the sacrificer first begins it, and remains a sacrifice even when he has finished it, and just as this conception of the sacrifice is the most essential element involved in all sacrifices, so the manifoldness of the Lord, i.e. His appearing in many forms, is the most essential of all His attributes, and therefore must be included in all meditations on Him.² ¹ Quotation given in the text is all wrong. ² G.B. 3.3.59, pp. 224-225, Chap. 3. 15B

[sū. 3. 3. 56. ADH. 24.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 701 Adhikarana 24: The section entitled "Differ- ence of words". (Sūtra 56) SŪTRA 56 "(THE VIDYĀS ARE) DIVERSE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF WORDS AND SO ON." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is diversity among the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest. Why? "On account of the difference of words and so on" regarding them. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, by showing ¹ that in spite of Brahman, the object to be meditated on, being one and the same, there are diverse meditations as there are different texts about them and so on, (the author) is after that removing the following doubt: It has been pointed out imme- diately above that in spite of there being injunctive texts regarding the meditations on the separate parts, the meditation on the Whole is the best of all, as the object meditated on is everywhere the same. Similarly, in spite of there being injunctive texts regarding different kinds of meditations on Brahman, such as the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest, all these meditations must be one and the same, as the object meditated on is everywhere the same (viz. Brahman). The doubt is as to whether all the meditations on Brahman which result in final emancipation, consisting in the attainment of Brahman, viz. the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā ², the Bhūma-vidyā ³, the Sad- vidyā ⁴, the Dahara-vidyā ⁵, the Upakosala-vidyā ⁶, the Vaiśvānara- vidyā ⁷, the Ānandamaya-vidyā ⁸, the Akṣara-vidyā ⁹, and so on, ¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason. ² Vide Br. Sū. 3.3 31. ³ Bhūma-vidyā or the doctrine of the Plenty taught by Sanatkumāra to Nārada. Vide Chānd. 7 13. Vide also V.K. 1.3.8. ⁴ Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.35. ⁵ Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.31. ⁶ Op. cit. ⁷ Op. cit. ⁸ Ānandamaya-vidyā or the doctrine of the Self consisting of bliss. Vide Tait. 2. ⁹ Akṣara-vidyā or the doctrine of the Imperishable taught to Gārgī by Yājñavalkya. Vide Bṛh. 3.8. Vide also V.K. 3.3.33.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 56. 702 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 24.] as well as the Prāṇa-vidyā ¹ and the rest which have a special object and a special result, are to be undertaken collectively or separately. The prima facie view is that though there are injunctions with regard to each of the meditations, yet as the object to be meditated on is everywhere the same, they are to be undertaken collectively. With regard to it, we reply: "Diverse". The meditations are diverse. Why? "On account of the difference of words and so on," i.e. as there are different texts about them like: 'Knows', 'Let one meditate', 'Let one form a resolution' (Chānd. 3.14.1), "But let one desire to enquire into the Plenty" (Chānd. 7.2.3, 1), "Let one meditate on Truth" (Bṛh 4.1.4) and so on. The sense is this. Though the object to be meditated on is the same, yet these meditations are not exactly identical, since the object to be meditated on has different forms, as (variously) qualified by the special attributes mentioned in the texts designating those special meditations. By the words "and so on" other grounds, besides texts, for taking sacrificial acts as different, as demonstrated in the section concerned with that topic ², viz. repetition, number, name, attribute and context, are to be understood. These establish that the meditations are different here too. Here ends the section entitled "Difference of words" (24). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 60 in his commentary. He too takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, but interprets it in a sectarian manner thus: "(The meditations on the different forms of the Lord are) different, on account of the difference of words and so on. That is, the medita- tion on Kṛṣṇa, e.g., is different from the meditation on Nṛsiṁha, because the two words 'Kṛṣṇa' and 'Nṛsiṁha' are different, their forms are different and their mantras too are different.³ ¹ Prāṇa-vidyā or the doctrine of the primacy of the vital-breath. Vide Bṛh. 6.1; Praśna 2; Kauṣ. 3. Vide also V.K. 3.3.10. ² Vide Pū. Mī. Sū. 2.2.1 ff. ³ G.B. 3.3.60, p. 225, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3 3. 57 ADH. 25.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 703 Adhikaraṇa 25: The section entitled “Option”. (Sūtras 57-58) SŪTRA 57 “(THERE IS) OPTION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DISTINCTION OF THE RESULT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha It has been shown that the various meditations (on Brahman) are not identical but different from one another. There is “option” of performance with regard to them, “on account of the non-distinction of result”. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been stated above that the meditations are ‘diverse’. Now, the mode of performing them, having the attainment of Brahman as their result, is being considered. The doubt is as to whether these Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, Bhūma-vidyā, Sad-vidyā and the rest, which result in the attainment of Brahman, are to be undertaken collectively or optionally. On the suggestion that like the Agni-hotra, Daśa-pūrṇa-māsa and the rest, they are to be undertaken collectively,— (The author) says: “Option”, i.e. any one alone is to be under- taken. Why? “On account of the non-distinction of the result,” i.e. because all the meditations on Brahman lead, without distinction, to the attainment of His nature. That is to say, as our purpose is served through one alone, it is not necessary for us to perform all the rest. Compare the scriptural and Smṛti texts like: “The knower of Brahman attains the highest” (Tait. 2.1), ‘“My devotees go to me even”’ (Gītā 7.23) and so on. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 61 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with showing that the meditations on the different forms of the Lord, such as Kṛṣṇa, Rāma and so on,

704 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 58. ADH. 25.] are optional, since any one of them leads to release. Hence, the devotee should choose one form and stick to it.¹ SŪTRA 58 “BUT (THE MEDITATIONS BRINGING ABOUT) OBJECTS OF DESIRE MAY BE COMBINED TOGETHER OR NOT AT WILL, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF THE FORMER REASON.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is no restriction with regard to the performance of (medita- tions) having results other than the attainment of Brahman, “on account of the absence of the former reason”, which involves such a restriction. Vedānta-kaustubha This aphorism supplies a counter-instance with a view to confirm- ing the stated view. “But the (meditations leading to) objects of desire,” i.e. the symbolic meditations having results other than the attainment of Brahman, set forth in the texts: “Verily, he who meditates on Name as Brahman comes to have freedom of movement as far as Name goes” (Chānd. 7.1.5), “He who knows this wind thus as the child of the quar- ters, mourns not for a son” (Chānd. 3.15.2) and so on, “may be com- bined together or not at will”, like the sacrificial acts which bring about heaven and the rest as results. Why ? “On account of the absence of the former reason,” i.e. on account of their not having the same result. Hence it is established that just as (the meditations) which have results other than the attainment of Brahman are to be undertaken at one’s will, without any restriction, by those who aim at those results, so, contrarily to them, (the meditations) which have the attainment of Brahman as their result are to be undertaken optionally by one who desires for salvation, as all these meditations produce the very same result. Here ends the section entitled “Option” (25). ¹ G.B. 3.3.61, p. 226, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3. 3. 59. ADH. 26.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 705 COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 61 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation like Nimbārka's. Adhikarana 26: The section entitled "Of the same nature as the bases".¹ (Sūtras 59–64) PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtras 59–62) SŪTRA 59 "(THE MEDITATIONS BASED) ON THE SUBSIDIARY PARTS (OF SACRIFICES) ARE OF THE SAME NATURE AS THEIR BASES." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha (The author) raises an objection, viz. On account of numerous indicatory marks, there is a regular inclusion in sacrifices of the meditations based on their subsidiary parts like the udgītha and the, rest. The meditations based on the udgītha and the rest are of the nature of subsidiary parts like the udgītha. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out that the meditations aiming at objects of desire are to be practised at will. Now, although it has been pointed out under the aphorism: "Non-restriction with regard to the specification of that" (Br. Sū. 3.3.41) that those meditations also which are based on the subsidiary parts of sacrifices may be included in those sacrifices at will,—yet with a view to confirming it strongly, (the author) raises an objection, viz. that as these (meditations on the subsidiary parts of sacrifices) subserve those sacrifices, as the subsidiary parts themselves do, they are to be included in sacrifices regularly. On the doubt, viz. whether the meditations which are based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, such as the udgītha and the ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.41, where the topic has already been treated.

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

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

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

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

¹ G.B. 3.3.66, p. 231, Chap. 3.