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

[sū. 3. 3. 26. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 625 Now, in the Upaniṣad of the Tāṇḍins, as well as in the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda, the abandonment of merit and demerit is declared. In the text of the Śāṭyāyanins, the obtainment of merit and demerit by the dear and the not dear is declared. In the text of the Kauṣītakins, on the other hand, both are declared. This being the case, there is no room for any doubt in the case where both abandoning and taking are mentioned. Where there is the direct mention of taking only, there abandoning too is implied, since taking is impossible without (prior) abandoning ¹ But where only abandoning is mentioned, there the following (question) is to be considered: The doubt is as to whether the taking of the abandoned merit and demerit, which taking is mentioned elsewhere, is to be inserted in the Upaniṣad of the Tāṇḍins and in the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda, or not. On the suggestion, viz. It is not to be inserted owing to the force of separate mention. Otherwise, the double implication (viz. abandoning and taking)—which is the result of such an insertion —being already established in the cases of the two texts of the Tāṇḍins and the followers of the Atharva-veda through such an insertion from the text of the Kauṣītakins, the mention of abandoning in those two texts must become useless,²— We reply: “But in the abandonment, on account of the word ‘taking’ being supplementary”. The word “but” disposes of the (above) prima facie view. “In the abandonment,” i.e. in the text which designates abandoning only, taking is to be inserted. Why? “On account of the word ‘taking’ being supplementary,” i.e. on account of the word ‘taking’ being supplementary to the word ‘abandoning’. The sense is that in the Upaniṣad of the Kauṣītakins, the text desig- nating the taking of the good and evil deeds is recorded as being supplementary to the text designating the abandoning of the good and evil deeds. Similarly here too, it is essential that the merits and demerits, abandoned by a knower, should be obtained by others. (The author) states a number of parallel instances, illustrating ¹ Hence these two cases present no difficulty. ² I.e. in the text of the Kauṣītakins both abandoning and taking are men- tioned, while in the texts of the Tāṇḍins and the followers of the Atharva-veda only abandoning is mentioned. Now if it be said that taking is inserted from the first to the last two, then abandoning too may very well be so inserted. In that case, the mention of abandoning in the last two texts becomes meaningless.