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

[SŪ. 3. 3. 24. 620 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 9.] Om” (Tait. Ār. 10.63; ¹ Mahānār. 24.2), and having stated the fruit belonging to a knower of Brahman, viz. the attainment of Brahman thus: “He attains the greatness of Brahman” (Tait. Ār. 10 63, ² Mahānār. 24 2), the text goes on to say: “For him who knows thus, the soul of the sacrifice” (Tait. Ār. 10.64; Mahānār. 25 2) and so on. As there is a reference to the knower of Brahman by the term ‘him’ here, and as it (viz. the meditation on the person) is mentioned in the immediate vicinity (of the meditation on Brahman), so it is gathered that the meditation on the person here is a subsidiary part of the meditation on Brahman, and that (as such) the former has no reference to a different fruit. This boing so, it is deduced that the attainment of Brahman alone is the fruit of the meditation on the person which is a subsidiary part of the meditation on Brahman. Hence it is established that as the identity of mere names, viz. ‘meditation on the person’ (puruṣa-vidyā), in the two cases, is of no great im- portance, the vidyās are different; that being so, there is no combina- tion of their special features. Here ends the section entitled “The meditation on the person” (9). COMPARISON Śaṁkara He reads “Puruṣa-vidyāyām iva”, instead of “Puruṣa-vidyāyām api”, and explains the sūtra thus: “As (the record of the Tāndins and Paiṅgins is) in the puruṣa-vidyā, (not such is the record) of others”. ³ Conclusion reached, the same. Baladeva This is sūtra 25 in his commentary. Like Śaṁkara he reads: “iva” in place of “api”. He concludes here the topic of the worship of the God-possessed souls, viz. that they, being not equal to the Lord, are not to be meditated on as possessed of His attributes. Hence the sūtra: (“As attributes like creatorship, rulership, and so on, are declared to be belonging to the Lord) in the meditation on the person (i.e. in the Puruṣa-sūktas of the Veda) and (in the Gopāla- ¹ Pp. 774-775. ² P. 775. ³ Ś.B. 3.3.24, p. 790. 10B

[sū. 3. 3. 25. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 621 pūrva-tāpanī), (so they are) not declared (to be belonging) to others (viz. the God-possessed souls)".¹ Adhikaraṇa 10: The section entitled "Piercing and so on". (Sūtra 25) SŪTRA 25 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF THE MATTER OF PIERCING AND SO ON." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In meditation there is no insertion of the sacred formulæ like: "Pierce all, pierce the heart" ², as well as of the sacrificial acts like Pravargya ³ and the rest, mentioned in the passage. "The gods, forsooth, held a sacrificial session" (Śat. Br. 14.1.1, 1 ⁴) and so on. Why? "On account of the difference of the matter of piercing and so on" from meditation. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, the following question is being considered: Just as the meditation on the person is a subsidiary part of the meditation on Brahman, it being mentioned in close proximity,—so are the sacred formulæ and the sacrificial acts, to be stated below, to be inserted in the meditation on Brahman as its subsidiary parts, they, too, being mentioned in close proximity, or not? In the beginning of their Upaniṣads, the followers of the Atharva- veda record sacred formulæ like: "Pierce all, pierce the heart, cleave the veins, cleave the head, divide into three parts" and so on. That is, O Deity! 'pierce', i.e. tear off, 'all' the limbs of my enemy. Thus, (1) 'pierce his heart', (2) 'cleave his veins', (3) 'cleave his head'. In this way, may my enemy be 'divided', i.e. disjoined, 'into three parts'. ¹ G.B. 3.3.25, pp. 149-150, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ³ Pravargya is a ceremony introductory to the Soma-sacrifice. ⁴ Ś, R, p. 1021, line 1.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 25. 622 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 10.] In the beginning of the Rahasya-brāhmaṇa, the Tāṇḍins also, the singers of the Sāma, read the sacred formulæ: "O God Savitṛ! produce the sacrifice, produce" (C.M.B. 1.1.1 ¹). The Śāṭyāyanin's record: "Thou art a white horse, tawny and black". The Kaṭhas and the Taittirīyakas record: "May Mitra give us weal, may Varuṇa" (Tait. 1.1) and so on. The Aitareyins too record a Mahā-vrata-brāhmaṇa: "Verily, Indra became great by killing Vṛtra". The Kauṣītakins too record a Mahā-vrata-brāhmaṇa thus: "Verily, Prajāpati is the whole year, his self is the Mahāvrata". The Vājasaneyins, on the other hand, record a Pravargyya- brāhmaṇa in the beginning of their Upaniṣad thus: "Verily, the gods held a sacrificial session" (Śat. Br. 14.1 1, 1). Here the doubt is, viz. whether the sacred formulæ and the sacrificial acts like Pravargya and the rest, mentioned in certain Vidyās, are to be comprised under those vidyās as their subsidiary parts, or not. The suggestion being: The inclusion of the sacred formulæ as well as of the sacrificial works as the subsidiary parts of meditation is proper, they being mentioned in close proximity. We reply: There is no inclusion. Why? "On account of the difference of the matter of piercing and so on." That is, as the matter of piercing and so on, subserving certain magical practices that are different from meditation, is different from meditation, so the matter of piercing and so on, mentioned by those particular texts, are not fit to be applied to meditation. Thus, from the indication, viz. the power of the sacred formulæ to exhibit their own sense,—which is stronger than (mere) proximity ²—it is deduced that the sacred formulæ are subsidiary parts of works like magical practices, study and so on. From direct scriptural statement, which is stronger than (mere) proximity,³—sacrificial works like Pravargya and the rest too are deduced to have an application to Jyotiṣṭoma and the like. Hence 1 Vide V.C., p. 491. This passage occurs in many other places. This text is found in many other treatises, vide e.g. Vj. Saṁ. 9.1; 11.7; 30.1; Tait. Saṁ. 1.7.7, 1; 4.1.1, 2, etc. 2 Vide Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.14. 3 Op. cit.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 26. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 623 it is established that there is no inclusion of these in those (vidyās) as the subsidiary parts of meditation. Here ends the section entitled “Piercing and so on” (10). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 26 in his commentary. He too takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, though concerned with an entirely different problem, viz. whether like the sweet and majestic attributes of the Lord such as bliss, omnipotence, mentioned above, His destructive and fearful attributes too such as piercing and so on, are to be medi- tated on, or not. The answer is given here. He supplies the word “na” here from sūtra 3.3.22 (21 in Nimbārka’s commentary). Hence the sūtra: “(One who is desirous of release should not meditate on the Lord as possessed of the attributes of piercing and so on, on account of the difference of result (of such a meditation, i.e. because such a meditation does not lead to release as the meditation on the Lord as Sweet and Majestic does)”.¹ Adhikaraṇa 11: The section entitled “Aban- donment”. (Sūtra 26) SŪTRA 26 “BUT IN THE ABANDONMENT (OF MERIT AND DEMERIT, THE TAKING OF THEM BY OTHERS IS TO BE SUPPLIED) ON ACCOUNT OF THE WORD ‘TAKING’ BEING SUPPLEMENTARY (TO THE WORD ‘ABANDON- ING’), AS IN THE CASE OF KUŚA, METRE, PRAISE, AND ACCOMPANYING SONG, IT HAS BEEN SAID (IN PŪRVA-MĪMĀṂSĀ).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “In the abandonment,” consisting in getting rid of merits and demerits, stated in the scriptural passage: “Then the knower, having discarded merits and demerits” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.3²), the taking,

¹ G.B. 3.3.26, p. 151, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 26. 624 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 11.] consisting in taking the merits and demerits, discarded by the knower, stated in the passage: “His sons obtain the inheritance, his friends the good deeds, his enemies the bad deeds”,¹ is included. Why? Because the word ‘taking’, mentioned in another branch, is supplementary to the word ‘abandoning’, just as the text: “The progeny of the udumbara tree” ² is supplementary to the text: “The kuśas are progeny of tree”, just as the text: “The metres of the gods are the prior” is supplementary to the text: “Let one praise by the metres”; just as the text: “The sun is half-risen” (Śat. Ś.S. 9.7.19 ³) is supplementary to the text · “He assists the chanting of the ṣoḍaśin ⁴ with gold ⁵”, and just as the text: “The Adhvaryyu ⁶ does not ⁷ join the singing” (Tait. Saṁ. 6.3.1 ⁸) is supplementary to the text. “The sacrificial priests join the singing”.⁹ Moreover, it is said by Jaimini as well: “Let it be supplementary to the text, on account of the impropriety of an option” (Pū. Mī. Sū. 10.8.15 ¹⁰). Vedānta-kaustubha Now the author points out that the inclusion of a particular matter in a particular place, with which it is connected, stands to reason. In the Upaniṣad of the Tāṇḍins, it is declared: “Shaking off evil, as a horse his hairs, shaking off the body as the moon frees itself from the mouth of Rāhu, I, with the self obtained, pass into the uncreated world of Brahman” (Chānd. 8.13.1). Similarly, it is declared by the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda. “His sons obtain the inheritance, his friends the good deeds, his enemies the bad deeds”. The Śāṭyāyanins read: “Then he discards good and evil deeds. His dear relatives obtain the good deeds, those not dear the evil deeds” (Kauṣ. 1.4).

¹ Op. cit. ² Op. cit. ³ P. 961. The text reads · “Samayābiṣite sūryye hiraṇyena vahirbhyām ca”, etc. ⁴ A hymn or a formula consisting of sixteen parts. ⁵ Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ⁶ One of the four classes of priests. His special duty was to measure the ground, build the altar, prepair sacrificial vessels, etc., and he had to recite the hymns of the Yajur-veda while doing these duties. ⁷ Correct reading. Na upagāyet=should not sing. ⁸ P. 175, line 9, vol. 2. R, Bh, Śk. ⁹ R, Bh, Śk. ¹⁰ P. 631, vol. 2. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[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.

626 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 26. ADH. 11.] the fact that a text, mentioned in one branch, may form the supple- ment of a text, mentioned in another branch, thus: "As in the case of the kuśa, metre, praise and accompanying song". Thus, just as it being known in a general manner that the kuśas are the progeny of tree from the text of the Kauṣītakins, viz. "You kuśas are the progeny of the tree, do protect me", it is known from the specific text of the Śāṭyāyanins: "The progeny of the udumbara tree", that the kuśas are the progeny of the udumbara tree,—this being so, the text of the Śāṭyāyanins becomes the supplement of the text of the Kauṣītakins,— the construction of this (latter) text is as follows: O Kuśas! You are the progeny of the tree, protect, i.e. save me, the sacrificer;—just as no specific order of priority and posteriority of gods and demons being mentioned in the text: "Let one praise by metres", a specific order is known from the text of the Paiṅgins, viz. "The metres of the gods are prior"; just as on an enquiry into the time of chanting, which is a subsidiary part of the taking of a particular kind of pot, viz. ṣoḍaśin, the time not being known specifically from the text: "He assists the chanting of the ṣoḍaśin with gold", the text of the Taittirīyas, desig- nating the time specifically thus: "When the sun is half risen, he assists the chanting of the ṣoḍaśin" (Śat. Ś.S. 9.7.19) becomes the supplement of that text; and just as the prohibitive text of one branch, viz. "The Adhvaryyu does not join the singing" (Tait. Saṃ. 6.3.1) becomes the supplement of the non-specific text of a different branch, viz. "The sacrificial priests join the singing"—so in the matter under discussion too, viz. abandoning, there is the insertion of taking. (The author) shows that this view that general texts imply specific texts is supported by another teacher as well, thus: "It has been said", i.e. said by Jaimini, viz. "Let it be, on the contrary, supple- mentary to the text, on account of the impropriety of an option. Let the injunction refer to the same place" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 10.8.15). The establishing of the double implication (viz. of abandoning and taking) in places concerned, on the other hand, should be known to be meant for the benefit of the respective readers of those (treatises). Hence it is established that "in the abandonment", taking is inserted. Here ends the section entitled "Abandonment" (11).

[sū. 3. 3. 27. ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 627 COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 27 in his commentary He begins a new adhikarana here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different question, viz whether the meditation on the Lord is obligatory or optional to the freed souls. He reads “Āchanda” instead of “chanda”, interpret- ing it as ‘option’. Hence the sūtra: “But on the destruction (of bondage, the released souls are under no obligation to practise medita- tion, because they have obtained) nearness (i.e. upāyana) (to the Lord), (and) because scriptural texts are supplementary (to this, i.e. are meant for leading the soul to this stage, viz release), just as the singing of hymns with the kuśa (in hand) is optional (i.e. āchanda) (for a student who has finished his daily duties), it is declared (by Scripture)”. That is, the aim of all scriptural texts is to teach men meditation so that they may attain salvation When that end is reached, i.e. men are freed and approach the Lord, it is no longer necessary for them to go on with further meditation.¹ Adhikarana 12. The section entitled “The passing away” (Sūtras 27-30) SŪTRA 27 “In passing away (there is a complete abandonment of merit and demerit), on account of there being nothing to be crossed, for thus others (declare).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha At the time (of the soul’s) departure from the body, it com- pletely abandons (its) merits and demerits. Why? Because after (its) separation from the body, there is no more experience “to be crossed” (i.e. undergone) through these two. This very thing others declare thus: “Verily, when one is bodiless, pleasure and pain do not touch him” (Chānd. 8.12.1 ²), “This serene being, having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in ¹ G.B. 3.3.27, pp. 153-154, Chap. 3. ² R.

628 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 27. ADH. 12.] its own form" (Chānd 8.3.4; 8.12.3 ¹) and so on. This being so, the decay of works which has actually taken place at the time of the soul's separation from the body, is recorded to take place after it crosses the river in the text: "He crosses that river Virajā. Then he discards good and evil deeds" (Kauṣ. 1.4 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha An investigation into the abandoning of sins by a knower and taking (by others) was undertaken above. Now we shall consider the time when such an abandoning of merit and demerit takes place. The doubt is as to whether some portions of the merits and demerits of a knower decay at the time of his separation from the final body, while some portions of these decay on the way, when, having left the body, he is moving towards the world of Brahman; or whether such an abandonment takes place only at the time of his separation from the body. Here the prima facie view is: Having begun thus: "Having reached the path of gods, he comes to the world of fire" (Kauṣ. 1.3), the Kauṣītakins record: "He comes to the river Virajā, crosses it with the mind, then he discards good and evil deeds" (Kauṣ. 1.4). As here such an abandonment appears to take place immediately after he crosses the river, and as in the Upaniṣads of the Tāṇḍins too, viz. in the text: "Having shaken off the evils, as a horse his hair" (Chānd 8.13.1), such an abandonment appears to take place at the time of his separation from the final body, it follows that he abandons some of his good and evil deeds at the time of his separation from the final body, and of some on the way, both these texts being (equally) authoritative: With regard to it, we say: "In passing away". "In passing away," i.e. when the soul is going to the next world, viz. at the time of its departure from the body alone, a knower discards his merits and demerits. Why? "On account of there being nothing to be crossed; or no good fruit to be attained through merits, and no evil fruit to be attained through demerits subsequently to the soul's leaving the body, there existing, subsequently to that, the fruit of vidyā alone, consisting in the attainment of Brahman's nature.

¹ R.                                                                                             ² Ś, Bh, Śk.

{sū. 3. 3. 27. ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 629 "Thus others," i.e. the followers of the other schools too record that subsequently to the fall of the body, there is no fruit of work to be undergone by a knower, except the attainment of the nature of Brahman, thus: "Verily, when one is bodiless, pleasure and pain do not touch him" (Chānd. 8.12.1), "This serene being, having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in his own form" (Chānd. 8 3.4; 8.12.3). The decay of karmas, which has actually taken place at the time of the soul's departure from the body, is recorded in the text of the Kauṣītakins to take place immediately after it crosses the river Virajā, thus: "He crosses the river Virajā with the mind; then he discards good and evil deeds" (Kauṣ. 1 4),—this is to be understood here Hence it is that the Tāṇḍins and the rest record that the abandonment takes place actually at the time of the soul's separation from the body, thus: "Shaking off the evils like a horse", etc. COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha Literal interpretation same, but he takes this (and the following two sūtras) as representing the prima facie view. Baladeva This is sūtra 28 in his commentary. He concludes the topic, viz. whether the worship of the Lord is obligatory on the part of the freed or not. He interprets the word, "sāmparāya" as love of the Lord 'Samparāya' means 'samparayanti tattvāni yasmin', i.e one in whom all the truths meet, viz. the Lord, and love of the Sam- parāya is 'sāmparāya'. Hence the sūtra: "When the love of the Lord (has arisen), (i.e. when the soul has become free), (it is no longer obligatory for it to practise meditation), on account of there being nothing to be crossed (i.e. there is no bondage any more), for thus others declare".¹ ¹ G.B. 3.3.28, pp. 155–158, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 28. 630 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 12.] SŪTRA 28 "ACCORDING TO INTENTION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-CONTRA- DICTION OF BOTH." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The friend and the enemy of a knower get respectively his merits and demerits "according to intention",—thus both become freo from contradiction. Vedānta-kaustubha The good and bad deeds, performed by a knower, go to others "accordmg to intention", i.e. according to resolution, "on account of the non-contradiction of both". A causeless discarding, by parts, of his own deeds to others is inconsistent on the part of a knower who is impartial; and a causcless appropriating of the good and bad deeds, performed by others, too, is inconsistent on the part of any one. One who acting in a friendly manner, wishes the knower good, obtains the merits of the knower for that very reason But one, who acting in an unfriendly manner, wishes the knower ill, obtains the demerits of the knower for that very reason. Thus, if the good and evil deeds go (to the friend and the enemy) in accordance with their intontions, the discarding and tho appropriating come to be free from contradiction. So Smṛti declares: "The sin of one who is being cursed goos to one who is cursing". It has beon said by the reverend Manu as well: "Having left his good deeds to his dear relatives, and his bad deeds to those not dear, he goes to Brahman, the eternal, through the path of meditation" (Manu. 6 7.9¹). COMPARISON Śaṁkara Interpretation different: "(The soul may attain knowledge) according to (its) likmg (only so long as it has a body); (our view is preferable) on account of the non-contradiction of both". That is, a disembodied soul cannot evidently undergo the requisites and so on for attaining knowledge, but an embodied being alone can do so according to its own liking. Hence, if the works of a knower still persist after the fall of his body, it will not be possible for him ¹ P. 225.

[sū 3. 3. 28. ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 631 to get rid of them ever, seeing that it will not be possible for him, a disembodied soul, to acquire any further knowledge. Further, if knowledge be the cause of the destruction of works, as soon as the knower attains knowledge, all his works must decay at once. Scripture also declares so. Hence our view is preferable, since it avoids a two-fold contradiction—viz. makes knowledge the direct cause of the destruction of works and does not contradict Scripture.¹ Rāmānuja Interpretation different. He here explains the Kauṣītaki-text (Kaus. 1.4) which seems to go against the view that the soul leaves all its works at the time of leaving the body. Hence the sūtra: "(The different parts of the text are to be arranged) at will, on account of the non-contradiction of both (viz. reason and Scripture)". That is, as it has been established on the ground of reason as well as Scripture that the soul leaves all its works at the time of its departure from the body, in order that these two—reason and Scripture—be not contra- dicted, the parts of the Kauṣītaki-text are to be re-arranged to suit the above conclusion, i.e. the part: 'He then discards good and evil deeds' is to be put before the part: 'Having attained the path of gods, he comes to the world of fire'.² Śrīkaṇṭha Literal interpretation same, but the fundamental difference is that he takes it to be laying down the prima facie view. Baladeva This is sūtra 29 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with showing the two ways of meditating on the Lord. Hence the sūtra: "(Either of the two modes of medi- tation, viz. on God, the sweet or on God, the Majestic, leads to salva- tion) through the will (of the Lord), since there is no conflict between the two, (i.e. there are texts to both effects and the devotee may choose either of them)".³ The word "no" is to be supplied from sūtra 3.3.22. ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.28, p. 806. ² Śrī. B. 3.3.28, p. 298, Part 2. ³ G.B. 3.3.29, pp. 158-159, Chap. 3.

632 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 29. ADH. 12 ] SŪTRA 29 "THERE IS MEANING OF THE GOING (OF THE SOUL) IN A TWO-FOLD WAY (I.E. ONLY IF IT DISCARDS BOTH DEMERIT AND MERIT), FOR OTHERWISE THERE IS CONTRADICTION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "There is meaning of the going" through the cessation, without distinction, of good and evil deeds. If the good deeds follow (the soul), then immediately after the enjoyment of their fruits, there must follow recurrence of births Vedānta-kaustubha Apprehending the objection . It is not appropriate to hold that at the time of the soul's separation from the body, it discards its good deeds (as well), as that may lead to undesirable results,—(the author) says. "In a two-fold way," i.e. through the cessation of both good and evil deeds at the time of the soul's separation from the body, "there is meaning of the going", i.e. the soul comes to attain its end immediately after the fall of the body Otherwise, if it be admitted that bad deeds alone are discarded, and that good deeds—which are non-distinct (from the bad deeds in this respect)—are exhausted through the enjoyment of their fruits, the scriptural text: "His friends attain his good deeds" will be contradicted, as well as the going,—this is the sense. Further, there being recurrence of births at the completion of enjoyment, the scriptural text laying down (the soul's) non-return will also come to be contradicted, viz. the text: "Those proceeding by this path return not to human existence" (Chānd. 4.15.6). It cannot be said that he (i.e. the knower) does not go by it, since there is no mention in Scripture of the soul's going through a different path. If it be said that the fruit of vidyā would be permanent,—(we reply:) there will be uncertainty of the fruit ¹ ¹ I.e. if it be urged that although the fruits of the good deeds of the knower, accompanying him, may entitle him to return, yet the fruit of his vidyā, which also accompanies him and which is permanent, entitles him to non-return—we point out that in that case, what exactly is going to be the fate of the knower, return or non-return, remains uncertain and ambiguous.

[sū. 3 3, 29. ADH. 12 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 633 COMPARISON Śaṁkara Interpretation entirely different. He begins a new adhikaraṇa. In some texts, the soul is said to go through the path of gods after having discarded merits and demerits; but in some texts, it is simply said to discard its merits and demerits. Hence the problem is whether the soul has to travel always through the path of gods for attaining Brahman. The answer is that there is no such necessity. The journey through the path of gods is not necessary for one who has attained identity with Brahman here and now. Hence the sūtra : "There is meaning of the going in two ways, (i.e. it is necessary in certain cases, not necessary in others), otherwise there is contradiction (of texts)".¹ Rāmānuja He takes this sūtra as laying down the prima facie view, thus: "There is meaning of the (soul's) going in two ways, (i.e. only on the hypothesis that it discards a part of its merit and so on at the time of leaving the body and the rest on its way), for otherwise there is con- tradiction". That is, if he is to discard all its merits and demerits at the time of its departure from the body, its subtle body too must be destroyed simultaneously. In that case, no going through the path of the gods will be possible on its part, a mere disembodied soul ² Nimbārka raises the problem and solves it in the next sūtra, as we shall see. Śrīkaṇṭha He inverts the order of this and the next sūtra. Thus:— Nimbārka and others Śrīkaṇṭha "Gaterartha-vattvam . . . ." "Upapannas tal-lakṣaṇārtho (sūtra 29). . . . .” (sūtra 29). "Upapannas tallakṣaṇārtho "Gater artha-vattvam . . . .” . . . .” (sūtra 30). (sūtra 30). Interpretation too different, viz. : Sūtra 29.—"Upapannas tal-lakṣaṇārtho . . . . ”: Here he con- cludes the prima facie view, viz. that the soul discards all its ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.29, pp. 803-804. ² Śrī. B. 3.3.29, p. 299, Part 2, Madras ed.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 29. 634 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 12.] merits and demerits at the time of leaving the body. He interprets it exactly after Nimbārka ¹ (sūtra 30 in Nimbārka's commentary), the fundamental difference being that while Nimbārka takes it to be stating the correct conclusion, Śrīkaṇṭha takes it to be stating the prima facie view only. Sūtra 30.—"Gater artha-vattvam . . . ." He takes it to be stating the correct conclusion against the prima facie view stated above in three sūtras, thus: "There is meaning of the going in two ways, (i.e. only on the hypothesis that the soul discards a part of its merits and so on, i.e. karmas, at the time of its departure from the body, and the rest after crossing the river Virajā), for otherwise there is contradiction". That is, if all the karmas of the soul are destroyed completely at the time of its departure from the body, it will become freed immediately and it would not be necessary for it to travel through the path of gods, attain Brahman, and then be freed. Hence the texts which designate the soul's travelling through the path of gods to attain Brahman and release will come to be con- tradicted. Further, if the soul becomes freed as soon as it leaves the body, the texts which designate that the soul attains its real form only on approaching Brahman too will come to be contradicted. In order to avoid the contradiction of these two kinds of texts, it must be held that all the karmas of the soul do not decay completely as soon as it leaves the body. The fact is that though the vidyā of the soul leads it to travel through the path of gods, yet as actual release is not obtained until one directly approaches Brahman, some remainders of karmas still cling to the soul until it crosses the sphere of matter and actually attains the Lord.² Baladeva This is sūtra 30 in his commentary. Here he concludes the section about the two paths of meditation. Hence the sūtra: "There is meaning of the path in two ways, (i.e. both the paths, viz. meditation on God, the sweet, and meditation on God, the majestic, have the power to lead to the Lord), for otherwise there is contradiction (i.e. ¹ ŚK. B. 3.3.29, pp. 332-333, Parts 10 and 11. ² ŚK. B. 3.3.30, pp. 333-334, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 30. ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 635 the texts which designate both of them to be leading to the Lord will be contradicted) " 1 . SŪTRA 30 "(THE GOING OF THE SOUL IS) APPROPRIATE, ON ACCOUNT OF FINDING THINGS WHICH ARE MARKS OF THAT, (VIZ. CONNECTION WITH THE BODY), AS IN ORDINARY LIFE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In spite of the decay of all the karmas of a worshipper of Brahman at the time of his separation from the body, the path (i e. his going through the path of gods) is "appropriate". Why? "On account of finding things which are marks" of connection with the body and the rest, in the passages: "Having attained the form of supreme light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd. 8.3.4 ²), "He roams about there, laughing, playing and enjoying" (Chānd. 7.25 1 ³) and so on,— just as a royal servant attains mundane ends. The sense is that in spite of the decay of all works and of the gross body, he continues to retain the subtle body, through the power of vidyā, in order that he may go to a distinguished place. Immediately after his separation from that, the knower, having attained the form mentioned in Scrip- ture, comes to attain the nature of Brahman. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. if it be admitted that there is the decay of all works at the time of the soul's leaving the body, there must be the destruction of the subtle body too at the same time. This being so, the path defined as the path of gods is "inappropriate",— (the author) says: In spite of the decay of all the works of a knower at the time of his leaving the body, the path of gods is "appropriate". Why? "On account of finding things which are marks of that," i.e. on account of finding things that indicate that even a knower whose good and evil deeds have decayed and whose real form has become manifest has connection with body and the rest. The things ¹ G.B. 3.3.30, p. 160, Chap. 3. ² R, ŚK. ³ R. II

[SŪ. 3. 3. 30. 636 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 12 ] which are marks of his connection with the body and so on, not brought about by karmas, is found in the following scriptural texts. "Stainless, he attained the highest equality" (Muṇḍ 3.1 3), "Having attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd. 8.3.4; 8.12.3), "He roams about there, laughing, playing, enjoying" (Chānd. 8.12.3), "He becomes a self-ruler, he comes to wander at will in all the worlds" (Chānd 7.25.1), "He becomes one- fold, he becomes three-fold" (Chānd 7 26.2) and so on. That is, just as in ordinary life, a royal servant attains his ends through the grace of the king, though he himself is unable to accomplish them through his own efforts, so through the grace of the Highest Person, the knower obtains a supremely wonderful body and so on, not brought about by karmas. The intention is this: when through the influences of vidyā, the knower, whose karmas have decayed, comes to attain a wonderful body and the rest,—not brought about by karmas,— why should not vidyā, for the sake of bestowing its own fruit, viz. the attainment of Brahman, cause the subtle body to persist through its own power in order to enable him to go through the path of gods, even on the complete decay of all karmas and of the gross body which is the means of enjoying pleasures and pain? The sense is this. The subtle body continues up to the soul's reaching the river Virajā, and immediately after that merges in the cause (viz Brahman). This (the author) will state under the aphorism: "Those in the Highest, for so (Scripture) says" (Br. Sū. 4.2.14). Hence it is established that there is the decay of all karmas at the time of the soul's separation from the final body. Here ends the section entitled 'The passing away' (12). COMPARISON Śaṁkara Interpretation absolutely different,—viz. "(The view that the going through the path of gods holds good in some cases only and not universally is) appropriate, on account of finding a purpose charac- terized thereby (i.e. a purpose for going)". That is, only those who meditate on the qualified Brahman go through the path of gods to attain Brahman, for in their case only, such a going has any meaning 11B

[sū. 3. 3 30. ADH. 12 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 637 and purpose, viz the attainment of certain results, to be reached only through going to different places, as declared by Scripture (e.g Kauṣ. 1.5-1.6) But in the case of the knowers, there is no necessity for such a going, since they attain identity with Brahman here and now immediately after the removal of the veil of nescience.¹ Rāmānuja Here he answers the prima facie view stated under the previous aphorism. Similar to Nimbārka's interpretation, though the inter- pretation of the words "upapanna" and "lokavat" different, thus '(The view that there is the complete decay of all works at the time of the soul's separation from the body is) appropriate, on account of finding things which are marks of that, (i e. soul's connection with the body), as in ordinary life". That is, just as a pond, dug at first for the purpose of irrigation of fields, continues to exist and be used by people for other purposes, such as, supplying drinking water and the like, even when its original purpose has been served, i.e. just as the effect, viz. the pond, continues to exist when its cause, viz. the purpose of irrigation, is no more, so the subtle body, the effect, continues to exist for serving a purpose, viz. the attainment of Brahman, other than its original purpose, viz. the undergoing of karmas, even when the karmas, its causes, are no more.² Bhāskara He interprets the sūtra thus: "(The teaching about the going of the soul is) appropriate, on account of finding a purpose characterized by that (viz. a purpose for the going), as in ordinary life". That is, in Scripture (Kauṣ 1.5-1.6) we find that the soul enters into conver- sation with the Kāryya-Brahman and this is not possible unless it travels through the path of light and so on. This also shows that it is accompanied by the subtle body, since in ordinary experience we find that only those who are endowed with senso-organs can enter into conversations. This subtle body disappears only when the soul attains the Supreme Brahman through the Kāryya-Brahman ³ ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.30. p. 804. ² Śrī. B. 3 3.30, p. 299, Part 2. ³ Bh B. 3.3.30.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 30. 638 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 12.] Śrīkaṇṭha For Śrīkaṇṭha interpretation, see under the previous sūtra. This is sūtra 29 in his commentary. Baladeva This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. He takes it as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with indicating which of the two paths of meditation—viz. meditation on God, the sweet and medi- tation on God, the majestic—is the higher. Hence the sūtra: "(The devotee who meditates on God, the sweet) has attained superiority ('upapanna') on account of obtaining an object having that charac- teristic (viz the Lord who is devoted to such a devotee), as in ordinary life". That is, just as a person through his love and loyalty for the king brings him under his control, i e. pleases him, so the devotee who meditates on the Lord as the sweet brings the Lord under his control, i.e. wins over his favour ¹ Thus, according to Nimbārka, Śaṁkara, Rāmānuja and Bhās- kara, there is a complete decay of the karmas of a knower at the time of his departure from the body, while according to Śrīkaṇṭha, there is the decay of some works then, the rest coming to decay when the soul has crossed over the river Virajā. Baladeva does not raise the problem at all. Again, while Nimbārka, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha hold that the going through the path of gods is obligatory for all knowers, Śaṁkara holds that it is obligatory only for those who meditate on the qualified Brahman, but never for those who know the non-qualified Brahman. ¹ G.B. 3.3.31, pp. 161-162, Chap. 3. "Loke yathā sarvādhikasyāpi rājñaḥ sva-janānuvṛtti-rasikasya kaścij janas tad eka-hitanipuṇas taṃ svā- dhīnaṃ kurvan praśasyate tad-vat."

[sū. 3. 3 31. ADH. 13.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 639 Adhikaraṇa 13. The section entitled "Non- restriction". (Sūtra 31) SŪTRA 31 • "(THERE IS) NO RESTRICTION (WITH REGARD TO THE GOING THROUGH THE PATH OF GODS, BUT IT BELONGS) TO ALL (THE WOR- SHIPPERS OF BRAHMAN), (THERE IS) NON-CONTRADICTION ON ACCOUNT OF WORD (I.E. SCRIPTURE) AND INFERENCE (I E. SMṚTI) " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is "no restriction" that the going which is mentioned in the Upakosala-vidyā ¹, Pañcāgni-vidyā ² and so on belongs only to those who are possessed of those vidyās; but it belongs "to all" the wor- shippers of Brahman. Thus, if the going be common to all, then (alone) there is "non-contradiction" of Scripture and Smṛti, viz. "Those who know this and those who worship faith and truth in the forest, pass over to light" (Bṛh 6.2.15 ³), "Fire, light, day, bright fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of the sun,— departing through these, the knowers of Brahman go to Brahman" (Gītā 8.24 ⁴) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha Previously, it has been stated that the going has a meaning only if there be the cessation of both good and bad deeds at the time of the decay of the gross body. Now, the question is being considered whether all those who possess Brahma-vidyā are entitled to such a supremely excellent journey, or only those who possess the vidyās in which it is mentioned.

¹ Vide footnote 1, p. 640. ² Vide footnote 2, p. 640. ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ⁴ R, Śk.