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

[SŪ. 3. 2. 41. 574 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 8.] should perform sacrifices" (Tait. Saṃ. 2.5.5) and so on, never assert that Karma is the giver of fruits independently. On the contrary, these texts instigate men to Karmas such as, worship of the deity, that lead to heaven. But Bādarāyaṇa thinks that the giver of fruits like enjoyment and salvation is "the former", i.e the Highest Self, the soul of all, omniscient, mentioned above. Why? "On account of the designation of (Him as) the cause," i.e. because the Highest Self alone is designated as the cause, as the instigator of actions and as the giver of fruits by a mass of scriptural texts like "For he alone makes one, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, do good deed" (Kauṣ. 3.8), "In consequence of good work, it leads to a holy world" (Praśna 3.7), "He is attainable by one alone whom he chooses" (Kaṭha 2.23; Muṇḍ. 3.2.3) and so on, as well as by a group of Smṛti passages like: "'And he attains his desires from him, the benefits are decreed by me alone'" (Gītā 7.22) '"I give that connection with intellect whereby they come to me'" (Gītā 10.10) and so on. Hence it is established that the fruit arises from this. Here ends the section entitled "The fruit" (8). Here ends the second quarter of third chapter in the holy Vedānta- kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīrakamīmāṃsā, by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa. Résumé The second quarter of the third chapter contains.— (1) 41 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka; (2) 41 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṃkara; (3) 40 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja; (4) 41 sūtras and 7 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara; (5) 40 sūtras and 9 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha, (6) 42 sūtras and 19 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva. Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha take sūtras 20 and 21 in Nimbārka's commentary as one sūtra. Bhāskara omits sūtra 34 in Nimbārka's commentary, while sūtra 15 in Bhāskara's commentary is not found in Nimbārka's. Baladeva breaks sūtra 25 in Nimbārka's commentary into two separate sūtras.

THIRD CHAPTER (Adhyāya) THIRD QUARTER (Pāda) Adhikaraṇa 1: The section entitled "The un- derstanding from all the Vedāntas". (Sūtras 1-5) SŪTRA 1 "THE UNDERSTANDING (I E. WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD) FROM ALL THE VEDĀNTAS (IS ONE), ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DIFFERENCE OF INJUNCTION AND THE REST" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Although mentioned in many places, meditation is one only, "On account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest". Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, with a view to instigating one who desires salvation to the meditation on the Highest Self which is a means to attaining His nature, the attributes of the Highest Self have been stated. Now, although knowledge is a means to attaining the nature of the Highest Self, yet just as sacred texts, spiritual teachers and the like, though well-known, come to be productive of fruits only when meditated on, so the Highest Self, though well-known, comes to be productive of fruits only when meditated on Now, we shall discuss the nature of vidyās or meditations on such a Supreme Brahman, as well as the problem whether these different vidyās ¹ are really identical or not, for ascertaining the combination or options of the details in them. The Udgītha-vidyā,² the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā,³ the Puruṣa-vidyā,⁴ the Dahara-vidyā,⁵ the Vaiśvānara-vidyā ⁶ and the rest are mentioned ¹ The vidyās are the various meditations mentioned in the various Upaniṣads and so on. ² Bṛh. 1.3 and Chānd 1.2. Vide Br Sū. 3.3.6. ³ Bṛh. 5.6; Śat Br. 10.6.3; and Chānd. 3.14. Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.19. ⁴ Chānd. 3 16–3.17 and Ait. Ār. 10.64. Vide Br. Sū. 3 3.24. ⁵ Bṛh. 2.1 17 and Chānd. 8.1–8.6. Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.38. ⁶ Bṛh 5.9 and Chānd. 5.11–5.18. Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.55.

576 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 1. ADH. 1.] by many schools. It will be shown later on that the peculiar features or details, mentioned in connection with each particular vidyā, are to be combined together However, the arrangement of the syllables in the aphorism is as follows. The same vidyā is mentioned in many Vedāntas On the doubt, viz. whether it is different, or whether the same vidyā is mentioned in many places,—if the prima facie view be. As it is mentioned in texts again and again without any specification, and because of the force of context, it is different. For this very reason, surely, the restriction with regard to the imparting of knowledge to the followers of the Atharva-veda who practise the head-rite ¹ mentioned in the passage “Let one declare this knowledge of Brahman to them alone by whom, however, the head-rite has been practised according to rules” (Muṇḍ 3 2 10), is reasonable, otherwise the head-rite, a part of vidyā, being open to the followers of all schools, the above restriction will be meaningless,— We reply. “The understanding from all the Vedāntas”, i.e. the meditation which is known from all, i. e. many, Vedāntas should be known to be one only. Why? “On account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest.” Among these, ‘injunction’ means an injunction like ‘one should know’, ‘one should meditate’. The words ‘and the rest’ imply connection, form and name, mentioned as the reasons for the non-difference of Karmas, in the aphorism laying down the correct conclusion under the section treating of different schools in the Pūrva-tantra, viz. “Or, one, on account of non-difference of connection, form, injunction and name” (Pū. Mī. Sū. 2.4.9 ²). That is, the meditations are identical, on account of the non-difference of their injunctions, connections, forms and names,— just as the obligatory Agni-hotra ³, mentioned in many branches, such as “He performs the Agni-hotra” (Chānd 5.24.1, 2), is one, on account of the non-difference of injunction; just as the Vaiśvānara- vidyā is recorded in both the Chāndogya (Chānd. 5.11–5.18) and Vājasaneyaka (Bṛh. 5.9), and here on account of the non-difference of injunctions, viz. “He meditates on Vaiśvānara” (Chānd. 5.12.2– ¹ For explanation see V.K. 3.3.3 below. ² P. 200, vol. 1. ³ Agni-hotra is an oblation to fire, chiefly of milk, oil and sour gruel, and there are two kinds of it, nitya or of constant obligation and kāmya or optional.

[Sū. 3. 3. 2. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 577 5.13 2, etc.), as well as of forms, name and of connection, viz. the attainment of Brahman, the vidyās are identical. In this case, the root ‘as’ indicates that the injunction is same, the form, viz. Vaiśvānara, is the same; and the name also is the same, viz. Vaiśvānara-vidyā. COMPARISON. Śaṁkara Literal interpretation same. But the fundamental difference is that according to Śaṁkara, all these vidyās are concerned with Saguna or lower Brahman only, and are not as such means to the attainment of the Nirguna or the higher Brahman. Some of them lead to the attainment of results here, while others lead to salvation on gradually by way of generating knowledge.¹ Baladeva He does not refer to the various vidyās, mentioned in the various Upaniṣads. In fact, as we shall see, he does not regard this pāda as dealing with the vidyās at all. He interprets the word: “Sarva- vedānta-pratyam” as “Sarva-veda-antapratyam”. The word “anta” means settled conclusion. Hence the sūtra: “The settled conclusion of all the Vedas is the knowledge (of Brahman), on account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest”. That is all the Vedas seek to teach Brahman, since all of them enjoin meditation on Brahman.² SŪTRA 2 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES (OF THE OBJECT OF MEDITATION, THERE IS) NO (IDENTITY OF VIDYĀ), (WE REPLY:) (THERE MAY BE REPETITION) EVEN WITH REGARD TO ONE (VIDYĀ).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected: the object of meditation is not the same, otherwise the same vidyā would not have been repeated in different Scriptures. Hence the vidyās are different—(we reply:) No, because ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.1, p. 754. ² [G.B.] 3.3.1.

[SŪ 3. 3. 2. 578 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] the repetition of one and the same vidyā is appropriate sometimes, because the readers are diffcrent, and sometimes for making the topic clear Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected : the same vidyās are often found repeated in the very same form in different sections. Hence the object to be meditated on must be different, and so the vidyās cannot be identical,— We reply : Such repetitions of the same vidyās in different sections are quite reasonable, as they serve a useful purpose. The same vidyā, set forth in one branch, is set forth again in the same form in other branches for the benefit of the different readers of those branches. If there be differences in some parts, then the device of the combination of points is to be resorted to.¹ In the case of one and the same branch, on the other hand, the readers being the same, every section deals with a different vidyā, since the texts are mutually sufficient by themselves.² ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ Vide Br. Sū 3.3.5. ² The sense is as follows : If one and the same vidyā be repeated in different Upaniṣads and so on, then there must evidently be some reasonable explanation for such a repetition. The prima facie objector points out that such a repetition serves no purpose and hence we must hold that really there is no repetition of the same vidyā, but that each is a new and separate vidyā, concerned with a different object. The answer to this is that such a repetition of one of the same vidyā in different branches of the Vedas is not meaningless, but serves two purposes:— (a) First, such a repetition is for the benefit of the different readers of the different branches of the Vedas. Each and every person does not evidently study each and every branch of the Vedas, but may read only one or some. A man, e.g. who studies the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, may not study the Chāndogya as well, and vice versa. Hence one and the same vidyā is set forth in both these Upaniṣads in order that both these persons may equally have an access to the vidyā in question. (b) Secondly, such a repetition serves to rectify possible mistakes, and make the topic clearer and confirm what has been already said. Thus, the fact that we meet with the same vidyā in different branches gives rise to no inconsistency. In the case of one and the same branch, however, the above two purposes being absent, there is no such repetition. Hence here every section deals with a different vidyā.

[Sū. 3. 3. 2. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 579 COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz "If it be objected that on account of the differences (of details) (there is) no (oneness of vidyā), (we reply:) (there may be difference of details) even in (one vidyā)". That is, the prima facie objector holds that the same vidyā is mentioned with different particulars in different places, e.g. in con- nection with the Pañcāgni-vidyā, five fires are spoken of in the Chān- dogya, but six in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. This proves that the two Pañcāgni-vidyās are not identical. The answer is that such differences of details are permissible even in the case of one and the same vidyā. If two vidyās agree in all essential points, the difference in some details by no means makes them two separate vidyās.¹ Baladeva As before, he does not raise the problem of the identity of vidyās at all, but only the problem whether Brahman is known from all the Vedas or not. Hence the sūtra: "If it be objected that on account of difference (i.e. the different accounts of Brahman), (Brahman is) not (designated in all branches). (we reply:) even in the same (branch) (other attributes of Brahman are mentioned)". That is, if it be objected that Brahman is designated differently in different Upaniṣads, --e.g. in one place He is depicted as knowledge and bliss (Bṛh. 3.9 28), in another as omniscient and all-knowing (Muṇḍ 1.1.9),--and as such the same Brahman is not set forth by all the Upaniṣads--the reply is that in the same Upaniṣad where Brahman is designated as know- ledge and bliss, He is designated as omniscient as well. Hence all branches speak of the same Brahman.² 1 Ś.B. 3.3.2, pp. 757-758, Bh. B. 3.3.2, pp. 175-176. 2 G.B. 3.3.2.

580 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 3. ADH. 1.] SŪTRA 3 "BECAUSE (THE HEAD-RITE IS A SUBSIDIARY PART) OF THE STUDY OF THE VEDA (AND NOT OF VIDYĀ), (IT) BEING SO (THERE IS) THAT RESTRICTION, (BECAUSE IT IS MENTIONED TO BE SO) IN THE SAMĀCĀRA, AND BECAUSE OF THE TOPIC, AND AS IN THE CASE OF LIBATIONS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And that head-rite too, which is mentioned in the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda thus: "Let one declare this knowledge of Brahman to them alone by whom, however, the head-rite has been performed according to rules" (Muṇḍ 3 2.10 ¹), does not prove that the vidyās are different, since the head-rite is enjoined as a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda. It being a subsidiary part of the Vedic study, is not performed by any one other than a follower of the Atharva-veda, and hence there is "that restriction".² Since in the book called "Samācāra" too they record the head-rite as a Vedic rite, and since there is a text: "One who had practised the vow does not read this" (Muṇḍ. 3.2.11 ³), that restriction is indeed appropriate, as it is in the case of oblations, beginning with the Sauryya Vedānta-kaustubha If the rite of carrying a pot of burning charcoals on the head, taught as a sacred duty in the text of the followers of the Atharva- veda thus: "Let one declare the knowledge of Brahman to them alone by whom, however, the head-rite has been performed according to rules" (Muṇḍ. 3.2 10), were a subsidiary part of the vidyā, then only we could have said that the vidyās are different. But as it is not a subordinate part of vidyā, we cannot do so.⁴ The word "because" states the reason, i.e. because the sacred duty called 'head- rite' is a subsidiary part "of the study of the Veda" alone, and not of the vidyā stated in it. "(It) being so," i.e. the head-rite being a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda, there is "that restriction", i.e. the restriction with regard to the teaching of ¹ Ś, R, Śk. ² Viz. that only those who have performed the head-rite are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ⁴ This answers the prima facie view mentioned above under V.K. 3.3.1.

[sū. 3. 3. 3. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 581 the rite, viz. that the sacred duty called ‘head-rite’ is to be perfomed by the followers of the Atharva-veda, and not by others. How is this known ? “In the Samācāra,” i e. in a book concerned with teaching Vedic rites, the followers of the Atharva- veda record the head-rite as a Vedic rite,—from that this is known; also “from the topic”, i e. because in the subsequent and concluding text: “One who has not practised the vow does not read this” (Muṇḍ. 3.2.11), the word ‘this’ refers to the collection of the Muṇḍaka- treatises forming the topic previously treated , further, the word ‘reads’ means ‘studies’ Here (the author) quotes a parallel instance “And as in the case of libations” The ‘libations’, i.e. the seven oblations. beginning with the Sauryya and ending with the Śataudana, have no connection with the three fires mentioned in a different branch, but are connected with the one fire mentioned by the texts belonging to the Atharva-veda, and hence they are to be offered to one fire by the followers of the Atharva-veda alone. In the very same manner, the followers of the Atharva-veda alone are entitled to perform the sacred duty called ‘head-rite’, which is a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda, and not others. In the text. “Let one declare the knowledge of Brahman” (Muṇḍ. 3.2 10), on the other hand, the word ‘Brahman’ denotes the sound Brahman (i.e. the Vedas) ¹ COMPARISON Bhāskara He reads “salila-vac ca” in place of “sava-vac ca”.² Interpre- tation same Baladeva He breaks the sūtra into two separate sūtras thus: “Svādhya- yasya . . . . adhicārac ca” (sūtra 3), and “Sava-vac ca tan niyama” (sūtra 4). Interpretations entirely different, viz.:— Sūtra 3. “For the injunction of the study of the Veda being such (i.e of a general import), and because of the eligibility (of all) to the sacred duties (mentioned in the Veda), (the entire Veda must ¹ That is, the head-rite being a Vedic rite, a part of the Vedic study,—those who practise it become entitled to the knowledge of the Atharva-veda in general. ² Bh. B. 3.3.3, p. 176.

582 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 4. ADH. 1 ] be studied)''. That is, injunctions like "Let one study his own sacred text" (Tait. Ār. 2 15) do not specify that only one particular portion of the Veda is to be studied, but that it is to be studied entirely. Moreover, the followers of one branch are not necessarily confined to the sacred duties of that branch only, but to all the duties enjoined in all the branches. Hence Brahman may be realized by all the religious practices taught in all the Vedas.¹ Sūtra 4. "And the restriction is not like libations" That is, the seven libations, beginning with the Sauryya and ending with the Śataudana, are open to the followers of the Atharva-veda only, and cannot be offered by the followers of other Vedas. But such is not the case with the worship of Brahman, which is universal and may be porformed by any and every one.²

SŪTRA 4 ‘AND (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS.’’ Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “And” the scriptural text: “The word which all the Vedas record” (Katha 2.15³) “shows” that the vidyās are identical. Vedānta-kaustubha Scripture “shows” that the vidyās aro the same thus. “The word which all the Vedas declare” (Kaṭha 2.15); Smṛti too: “ ‘Through all the Vedas I alone am to be known’ ” (Gītā 15 15). COMPARISON Baladeva He quotes the same passage, but as before does not refer to the identity of vidyās, but concludes the topic that Brahman is the object taught by all the Vedas.⁴

¹ G.B. 3.3.3, pp. 114-115, Chap. 3. ² G.B. 3.3 3, pp. 114-115, Chap. 3. ³ Ś, R, Bh, B. ⁴ G.B. 3.3.5.

[SŪ. 3. 3 5. ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 583 SŪTRA 5 "AND (THE VIDYĀS) BEING THE SAME, (THERE IS) COMBINATION (OF THE SPECIAL FEATURES), ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DIFFERENCE OF MEANING AS IN THE CASE OF WHAT IS COMPLEMENTARY TO INJUNCTION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The vidyās being identical, and their meaning being the same, their special features are to be combined together, "as in the case of what is complementary to the injunction" with regard to the Agni-hotra and the like. Vedānta-kaustubha The identity of the vidyās being thus established, the author explains its purpose. "And" meditations "being the same", their special features are to be combined together. The sense is that the special features or details found in one vidyā are to be applied to others as well, "on account of the non-difference of meaning", i.e. on account of the unity of purpose. "As in case of what is complementary to injunction," i e. just as there is the combination everywhere of what is complementary to the injunctions regarding the Agni- hotra and the rest,—like that.¹ Hence it is established that on account of the non-difference of injunctions and the rest, vidyās or meditations are the same, and that their special features are to be combined together. Here ends the section entitled "The understanding in all the Vedāntas" (1) Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha They take this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Inter- pretation same. ¹ I.e. in the Karma-Kāṇḍa, the special features or aṅgas of a sacrifice are mentioned in various places and not in the same place; yet when the sacrifice is performed, all these scattered features and details are combined. Similarly, the special details of a particular vidyā or meditation may be mentioned in various places; yet when it is practised, all these details are to be brought together.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 6. 584 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 2.] Baladeva This is sūtra 6 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras) concerned with the problem of the coalescence of the attributes of the Lord. Brahman is described variously in various texts. In one place, He is described as Kṛṣṇa, in another as Rāma, in another as Nṛsiṁha and so on. Hence the problem is whether all of these different attributes of the Lord,—His sweetness, heroism, terribleness, and so on—are to be combined when meditating on Him, or not. The prima facie view is that they being contradictory attributes are not to be combined. Hence the reply: “And if (the meditation) be the same, the combination (of attributes) (is permissible), on account of the non-difference of the object (viz. Brahman), as in the case of what is complementary to injunction”. That is, in the case of the common meditation on pure Brahman, the object of meditation being the same, all the attributes are to be combined, just as Agni-hotra being the same, all its details are to be combined ¹ Adhikaraṇa 2: The section entitled “Differ- ence”. (Sūtras 6–9) PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 6) SŪTRA 6 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT (THERE IS) DIFFERENCE (BETWEEN THE TWO UDGĪTHA-VIDYĀS) ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIPTURAL TEXT, (WE REPLY.) NO, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DIFFERENCE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha It is stated in the Vājasaneyaka: “Then, verily, they said to this breath in the mouth: ‘Sing the udgītha for us’. ‘So be it’—that breath sang the udgītha for them” (Bṛh. 1.3.7 ²). And it is stated in the Chāndogya too: “Then, verily, he who is this chief vital-breath him they worshipped as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.2.7 ³). On the doubt, viz. whether the vidyās are the same here, or different, the prima facie view is that the vidyās are the same. If it be objected that ¹ G.B. 3.3.6, pp 119-120, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. ³ Op. cit.

[sū. 3. 3. 6. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 585 in the Vājasaneyaka text: ‘ “Sing the udgītha for us” ’ (Bṛh 1.3.7), breath is said to be a subject, while in the Chāndogya text. “Him as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.2 7), it is said to be an object Hence the vidyās are different,—(the prima facie objector replies:) “no”, “on account of non-difference” in the introductory part, i.e. because in the texts: “Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha” (Bṛh. 1.3.1 ¹), “They took the udgītha, (thinking ) with this we shall kill ² them” the udgītha alone appears to be the object to be meditated on (Chānd. 1.2.1 ³) Hence it is established that the meditations are the same. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been said above that the vidyās, though recorded in many places, are really identical as the injunctions and the rest are so, and it has been shown that their special features are to be mutually combined. Now, wishing to point out the difference of several vidyās, the author is first stating the prima facie view. Having begun thus: “The gods and the demons were the offspring of Prajāpati” (Bṛh. 1.3.1), having mentioned the vow of the gods, viz.: “Those gods said: ‘Let us overcome the demons at the sacrifice with the udgītha’ ” (Bṛh 1 3.1), and having shown how they failed to realise their purpose, i.e. to destroy the demons through speech and the rest, the Vājasaneyins record how they finally overcame the demons through the knowledge of the udgītha thus · “Then, verily, they said to the breath in the mouth: ‘Sing the udgītha for us’. ‘So be it,’ that breath sang the udgītha for them” (Bṛh 1.3.7). They further state the fruit of the knowledge of the udgītha thus · “He becomes superior by himself, his hateful enemy (becomes inferior) who knows thus” (Bṛh. 1 3.7). Having begun thus: “Then, verily, the gods took the udgītha, (thinking) ‘With this we shall kill ⁴ them’ ” (Chānd. 1.2 1), and having shown, as before, how they failed to realise their purpose though striving hard, the Chandogas too record how they finally overcame the demons through the knowledge of the udgītha thus “Then, verily, ¹ R, ŚK. ² Correct quotation: “abhibhaviṣyāmaḥ”, meaning “ we shall overcome”. Vide Chānd. 1.2 1, p. 20. ³ R, ŚK. ⁴ For correct quotation see footnote 2, above.

586 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 6. ADH. 2.] he who is the chief vital-breath,—him they worshipped as the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.2.7). They, further, state the fruit of the knowledge thus: "So exactly he falls to pieces who wishes evil to one who knows thus" (Chānd 1.2.8 ¹) On the doubt, viz whether here the vidyās are identical or different,—we (i.e. prima facie objectors) say: The vidyās are the same. Why? "On account of the non-difference" of injunctions and the rest. Thus, the injunction, expressed by the root 'to know', is the same, the fruit too, viz the overcoming of the demons, is the same; the form, as well, is the same as the object to be meditated on, viz the udgītha viewed as the vital-breath, is so; and the name, too, viz. 'udgītha-meditation' is the same. If it be objected: There is "difference", i.e. there is difference from the admitted sameness of the vidyās, i.e. the vidyās are not identical. Why? In the text: " 'Sing the udgītha for us.' That breath sang the udgītha" (Bṛh. 1.3.7), the vital-breath is indicated as a subject by the Vājins by a word in the nominative case. But in the text: "Him, the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.2.7), it is described as an object, having the form of the udgītha, by the Chāndogas by a word in the accusative case,—on account of such scriptural texts,—

¹ Vide the udgītha-vidyā or the doctrine of the udgītha in Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya.— (a) Bṛh. 1.3.—The story begins: The gods and the demons, the offspring of Prajāpati fought with one another for the worlds. The gods, then resolved to overcome the demons at the sacrifice by the udgītha. So they asked speech to sing the udgītha for them. But the demons, coming to know of this, rushed upon it and pierced it with evil. Thereupon the gods successively approached the in-breath, the eye, the ear and the mind, each of which was however corrupted by the demons. Finally, they approached the chief vital-breath which sang the udgītha for them, and when the demons rushed upon it, trying to pierce it with evil, they themselves were scattered and perished (Bṛh. 1.3.1–1.3.7). (b) Chānd. 1.2.—A very similar account given. The story begins: The gods and the demons, the offspring of Prajāpati fought with one another, and the gods took the udgītha, thinking that they would overcome the demons with it. Then they worshipped the breath in the nose as the udgītha, but the demons pierced it with evil. Thereupon, they successively worshipped as the udgītha speech, the eye, the ear and the mind, each of which were, however, corrupted by the demons. Finally, they worshipped the chief vital-breath as the udgītha, and when the demons tried to corrupt it, they themselves fell to pieces (Chānd 1.2.1–1.2.7).

[sū. 3. 3. 7. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 587 (We, i.e the prima facie objectors, reply.) "no", because in the texts: '"Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha"' (Bṛh. 1.3.1), "They took the udgītha, (thinking) 'With this we shall kill them'" (Chānd. 1.2.1), the udgītha alone appears to be the object to be medi- tated on. Nor can it be said that this difference of case-endings would make them differ in major points¹ In the text: '"Sing the udgītha for us"' (Bṛh. 1.3.7), the udgītha which is really an object is said to be a subject figuratively COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 7 in his commentary He does not take it to be setting forth a prima facie view, and does not begin a new adhikaraṇa here, but continues the topic of the coalescence of the different attri- butes of the Lord. Hence the sūtra. "If it be objected that the con- trary is the case (i.e. all the attributes of the Lord are not to be combined while meditating on Him), (we reply.) no, on account of non-specifi- cation, (i.e because there is no specific text to the effect)".² CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 7-9) SŪTRA 7 "OR (THERE IS) NO (SAMENESS OF THE VIDYĀS), ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES OF THE SUBJECT-MATTERS, AS IN THE CASE OF BEING HIGHER THAN THE HIGH." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha With regard to it we reply: The vidyās are not identical. Having begun by designating the praṇava, which is a part of the udgītha, as the object to be wor- shipped, in the text: "Let one meditate on the syllable 'Om' as the ¹ E.g. the war between the gods and the demons; the approach of the gods to speech, eye, ear and mind; the successful attempt of the demons to corrupt them, their unsuccessful attempt to corrupt the chief vital-breath; the final overcoming of the demons by the chief vital-breath as the udgītha, etc. ² G.B. 3.3.7, pp. 120-121, Chap. 3. 8

588 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3 3. 7. ADH. 2.] udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1 1 ¹), the text goes on to say: “They took the udgītha” (Chānd. 1 2.1 ²); and hence in the Chāndogya, the praṇava, a part of the udgītha, is enjoined as the object to be viewed as the vital- breath In the Vājasaneyaka, on the other hand, in accordance with the introductory passage, containing no specification, viz. ‘ “Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha” ’ (Brh. 1 3 1 ³), the entire udgītha is the object to be viewed as the vital-breath. Hence, the introductory parts being thus different, the vidyās themselves must be so; just as in spite of the sameness of injunctions, viz. that the praṇava, which is a part of the udgītha, is to be viewed as the Highest Self,—the injunction that the udgītha is to be viewed as the golden Person is different from the injunction that it is to be viewed as quahfied by the attributes of being higher than the high and so on.⁴ Vedānta-kaustubha The author refutes the above view. The words “or not” imply that the above view is to be rejected. The udgītha-meditations are not identical. Why? “On account of the difference of subject-matters”. The word ‘subject-matter’ means ‘introduction’, i.e. on account of the difference of the intro- ductory parts. Thus, having begun with the praṇava,—which is a part of the udgītha, the object of the action of the singer of the ud- gītha,—as the object to be worshipped in the text: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha (Chānd 1.1.1), the text goes on to say: “They took the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.2.1); and hence in the Chāndogya, the praṇava, a part of the udgītha, is stated as the object to be viewed as the vital-breath. In the Vājasaneyaka, on the other hand, in accordance with the introductory passage, containing no speci- ¹ S, R, ŚK. ² Not quoted by others. ³ R. ⁴ I.e. in Chānd. 1.6.9 it is said that sāman, i.e the udgītha, is to be viewed, i.e. meditated on, as the golden Person within the sun; while in Chānd. 1.9.2 it is said that the udgītha is to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes of being higher than the high and so on. Now, although in both cases the udgītha is the object enjoined to be meditated on, yet as it is to be meditated on under two different aspects, in the one case as a golden Person and in the other as higher than the high and so on,—the two udgītha-meditations are taken to be different. In the very same manner, here although the same udgītha is en- joined to be meditated on, yet since in the one case it is to be meditated on as a part, in the other as the whole, the two udgītha-meditatons are not identical. 8B

[sū. 3. 3. 7. ADH. 2 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 589 fication, viz. ‘ "Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha" ’ (Bṛh. 1 3 1), the entire udgītha is the object to be viewed as the vital-breath. Hence as the introductory parts are different, the objects enjoined too must be so, the things enjoined being different, the forms too must be so, and on account of that, the vidyās themselves must be different; just as, even in the same branch ¹, in spite of the sameness of injunc- tions, viz that the pranava, which is a part of the udgītha, is to be viewed as the Highest Self,—the injunction that it is to be viewed as the golden Person is different from the injunction that it is to be viewed as qualified by the attributes of being higher than the high and so on. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 8 in his commentary He begins a new adhikarana here (two sūtras), concerned with an altogether different topic. It has been pointed out in the previous adhikarana that while meditating on the Lord, all His attributes are to be combined. Now it is pointed out in this adhikarana that that is the case with the svaniṣṭha devotees only, but in the case of the ekāntin devotees, there is no such combination He interprets the word “prakaraṇa” in the sūtra as “prakṛṣṭa karaṇam”, i.e. excellent act, viz devotion. Hence the sūtra: “Or (there is) no (combination of attributes in the case of the ekāntins) on account of the difference of devotion (i.e. because the devotion of the ekāntins is one-pointed, while that of the svaniṣṭha is universal), as in the case of being higher than the high, (i.e. just as the ekāntin worshipper of the golden Person in the sun does not combine the qualities of being higher than the high and so on).² ¹ The rule is that meditations are different when the objects meditated on are different, whether in the same branch or in different branches. If the objects meditated on are not different, then the meditations are identical, in spite of repetition, and serve other purposes. See footnote 2, p. 578. ² G.B. 3.2.8, pp. 122-123, Chap. 3.

590 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 8. ADH. 2.] CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 8 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT (OF THE SIMILAR) NAME (THERE IS SAMENESS OF THE VIDYĀS), (WE REPLY:) THAT HAS BEEN SAID, ON THE OTHER HAND, (THERE IS) THAT TOO (I E THE IDENTITY OF NAMES) (EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF IDENTITY OF THE OBJECTS NAMED).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “If it be objected that on account of name” the vidyās must be identical,—(we reply:) Under the aphorism: “Or not, on account of the difference of subject-matter” (Br. Sū. 3 3.7) it has been shown the mere identity of names is of no great force “On the other hand,” names may be identical even when the subject-matters enjoined are different; just as the name ‘Agni-hotra’ applies to the regular Agni- hotra, and to the Agni-hotra which is a part of the ceremony called ‘Kuṇḍapāyinām ayanam’.¹ Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected that “on account of name”, i.e. on account of the name ‘udgītha-meditation’, the udgītha-vidyās are identical— (we reply:) The reply to this has been given under the aphorism: “Or not, on account of the difference of subject-matter” (Br. Sū 3.3.7). That is, the difference of vidyās being established on the ground of the difference of introductory parts, mere identity of names cannot make the vidyās identical. Moreover, even two dif- ferent subject-matters may have identical names, just as the name ‘Agni-hotra’ applies to the regular Agni-hotra and to the Agni-hotra which is a part of the ceremony called ‘Kuṇḍa-pāyinām ayanam’, and just as the First-Day sacrifice is to be observed both in the Twelve-Days’ sacrifice and in the Gavāmayana sacrifice. 1 A particular religious ceremony in which ewers or pitchers are used for drinking.

[sū. 3. 3. 9. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 591 COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 9 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic that in the case of the ekāntin devotees, there is no combination of all the attributes of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: "If it be objected that on account of (the similarity of) name (i.e. because both the svaniṣṭha and ekāntin are called 'worshipper of Brahman') (the ekāntin, too, must be called 'worshipper of Brahman') (the ekāntin, too, must meditate on all the attributes of the Lord), (we reply,) that has been said (under the previous sūtra), on the contrary, there is that¹" That is, there is an instance to the effect, viz. the meditation on the golden Person ² and that on the ether ³ have both the name 'udgītha-meditation', yet the attributes of the one are not combined in the other. ————— CORRECT CONCLUSION (end) SŪTRA 9 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF UNIVERSALITY, (IT IS) APPROPRIATE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha As the praṇava, mentioned in the beginning, is the object to be meditated on, in all the udgītha-meditations in the Chāndogya, it is "appropriate" that the word 'udgītha', mentioned in the middle in the text: "They took the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.2.1), too should really imply the praṇava. In the Chāndogya the praṇava, a part of the udgītha, is to be meditated on under the aspect of the vital- breath; in the Vājasaneyaka, the entire udgītha,—as such, the vidyās are different. Vedānta-kaustubha In the first chapter of the Chāndogya, various udgītha-meditations ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ G.B. 3.3.9, pp. 123-124, Chap. 3. ² Chānd. 1.6.9. ³ Chānd. 1.9.2.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 9. 592 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 2.] are mentioned. Now, the praṇava,—introduced in the text: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1),— is the common object to be meditated on as a part of the udgītha. So it is “appropriate” that the word ‘udgītha’, mentioned in the middle in the text: “Then, forsooth, the gods took the udgītha” (Chānd 1 2 1), too should really imply the praṇava. It is often found that a word denoting the whole denotes its parts, as e g. when one part of a piece of cloth is burnt, it is said that the cloth is burnt. This being so, in the Chāndogya, the praṇava alone, denoted by the term ‘udgītha’ and a part of the udgītha, is the object to be meditated on under the aspect of the vital-breath. In Vājasaneyaka, by the term ‘udgītha’ the entire udgītha, that which the singer of the udgītha sings, is to be understood, i.e. that alone is to be meditated on under the aspect of the vital-breath. Hence, it is established that the udgītha-meditation mentioned in the Chāndogya is different from the udgītha-meditation mentioned in the Vājasaneyaka. Here ends the section entitled “Difference ” (2). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara They take it as an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation different, viz. It is said in the Chāndogya (1.1.1) that the ‘Om’ is to be medi- tated on as the udgītha. Here the Om and the udgītha are designated as standing in a relation of co-ordination (sāmānādhikaraṇa). Now the problem is what exactly this co-ordination between the two implies,—whether adhyāsa or conscious voluntary super-imposition of one object upon another and thereby thinking the two as identical; apavāda or bādha, i e. the negation of the former false knowledge of a thing by the latter correct knowledge; or finally viśeṣaṇa, i e. quali- fication, distinguishing the thing qualified from other things. The last is the correct view. The udgītha here specializes and thereby restricts the Om which extends over the entire Veda,—i.e. only that Om which is a part of the udgītha is to be meditated on here and not the Om which extends over the entire Veda. Hence the sūtra: “On account of the extension (of the Om to the entire Veda), (the view

[SŪ. 3. 3. 9. ADH 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 593 that the term udgītha expresses a specialization of the Om is) appro- priate”.¹ Śrīkaṇṭha He too takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation different, viz. In the text. “Let one meditate on the syllable Om, the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1), the Om and the udgītha are mentioned separately. The problem is whether they are to be meditated on separately or co-ordinately. The prima facie view is that they are to be meditated on separately, since they are mentioned separately. But the correct conclusion is that the udgītha qualifies the praṇava and as such the praṇava is the object to be meditated on here. Hence the sūtra: “And on account of the universality (of the praṇava as the object to be meditated on), (the view that the praṇava is qualified by the udgītha is) appropriate”. That is, just as the praṇava is designated as the object to be meditated on in the introductory passage, so in the subsequent passages too Hence here the object to be meditated is the praṇava as qualified by the udgītha, and not the praṇava and the udgītha.² Baladeva This is sūtra 10 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the attributes of infancy and the like too are to be included in the medi- tations on Him. Hence the sūtra: “And on account of all-pervasive- ness, (this is) consistent”. That is, the Lord is all-pervading in spite of His states of infancy and the like, since He is not limited by those attributes of infancy and so on. Hence the meditation on the Lord as possessed of these attributes is perfectly consistent.³ ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.9, pp. 766 ff.; Bh. B. 3.3.9, pp. 177-178. ² Śk. B. 3.3.9, pp. 296–298, Part 9. ³ G.B. 3 3.10, pp. 127-128, Chap. 3.