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

[sū. 1. 1. 1. 20 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 1.] combination of knowledge and work. Thus, according to both Nimbārka and Bhāskara, the enqury into Brahman should be under- taken after an enquiry into religious duties, but for different reasons. According to Nimbārka, the prior study of the Karma-mīmāṁsā convinces us of the transitory nature of the fruits of karmas, and this naturally leads us to the study of the Brahma-mīmāṁsā, with a view to attaining a permanent fruit therefrom, viz salvation. For this reason, we study first the Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, and then the Uttara- mīmāṁsā or the Vedānta. But according to Bhāskara, we enquire into Karmas before enquiring into Brahman for quite different reasons, viz. (1) We do not enquire into Karmas first and then into Brahman, because the former are transitory, the latter not, but we enquire into both Karmas and Brahman, for the very same reason, viz. because we know that they both play an equal part in the attainment of salvation. Salvation can be obtained through a proper combination of knowledge and works, and unless we first know the nature of the works themselves, we cannot possibly decide which kinds of works are to be resorted to and combined with knowledge, and which kinds to be avoided and not to be so com- bined. It is for this reason, that we first study the Karma-mīmāṁsā, and then the Brahma-mīmāṁsā, and combine the obligatory works with knowledge, avoiding those that are undertaken for selfish ends. (2) Further, the Vedānta deals with various kinds of meditations on the subordinate parts of sacrifices—, e.g. the meditation on the udgītha and so on. But unless we are first acquainted with the nature of those sacrifices themselves, such meditations are not possible. It is for this reason also that we first study the Karma-mīmāṁsā, and then the Brahma-mīmāṁsā.¹ Bhāskara also criticises here the Śāṁkarite interpretation of the term "atha".² Śrīkaṇṭha Literal interpretation same, but import different. That is, Nimbārka and Śrīkaṇṭha both agree that the Brahma-mīmāṁsā is to be studied after the study of the Karma-mīmāṁsā, but the reason for this, as given by Śrīkaṇṭha, is different from that given by Nim- bārka. We have already seen the reason given by Nimbārka. But

---

¹ Bh. B. 1. 1. 1, p. 2. ² Op. cit., pp. 3–5.