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

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.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 10. 594 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 3.] Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled “Non- difference of everything”. (Sūtra 10) SŪTRA 10 “ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DIFFERENCE OF EVERYTHING (I.E. EVERYWHERE, VIZ. CHĀNDOGYA AND BṚHADĀRAṆYAKA), THOSE (QUALITIES ARE TO BE INSERTED) ELSEWHERE (VIZ. IN THE KAUṢĪTAKI).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the Chāndogya as well as in the Vājasaneyaka, under the dialogue of the sense-organs, the vital-breath, endowed with the attributes of being the oldest and the best, is designated as the object to be worshipped, and also speech and the rest are designated as possessed of the attributes of being the richest and so on; and those attributes are ascribed to the vital-breath. In the dialogue of the sense-organs in the Kauṣītaki, on the other hand, the attributes of speech and the rest are stated, but are not ascribed to the vital- breath. With regard to it, we reply: “Elsewhere”, i.e. in the dialogue of the sense-organs in the Kauṣītaki as well, they are to be ascribed to the vital-breath, as in all the three dialogues speech and the rest are said to be under the control of the vital-breath,—which is the cause of the seniority and excellence of the latter Vedānta-kaustubha While in one place (viz. in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka) the word ‘udgītha’ refers to the whole, in another place (viz. in the Chāndogya) it refers to a part only and as such does not relate to the whole,—hence the two udgītha-meditations are different. Likewise since in some cases the vital-breath is designated as endowed with the attributes of being the richest and the like, in some cases, again, not so endowed, the medi- tations on the vital-breath too are different,—the author is refuting this view now by the maxim of the combination of special features.¹ In the dialogue of the sense-organs, the Chāndogas as well as the Vājasaneyins demonstrate the vital-breath, endowed with the attri- butes of being the oldest and the best, as the object to be worshipped thus: “He who, verily, knows the oldest and the best, becomes, for- ¹ Designated under Br. Sū. 3.3.5

[SŪ. 3. 3. 10. ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 595 sooth, the oldest and the best of his own people. The vital-breath, verily, is the oldest and the best" (Bṛh. 6.1.1 ¹) and so on; and they demonstrate the attributes of speech and the rest, such as: being the richest and so on, thus: "These divinities, verily, disputed for self- superiority" ² and so on, "Disputing for self-superiority" (Bṛh 6.1.7 ³) and so on; as well as establish the excellence of the vital- breath on the ground that speech and the rest and the body have their existence as well as activities under the control of the vital-breath, and finally ascribe the attributes of speech and the rest, such as, being the richest and so on, to the vital-breath, the oldest and the best, thus: "Then, verily, speech said to him: 'If I am the richest, you are the richest' " (Chānd. 5.1.13 ⁴) and so on. Thus, according to them, the object to be worshipped is the vital-breath, endowed with the attributes of being the oldest, the best, the richest and so on, as subserving speech and the rest. In the dialogues of the sense-organs in the branches of the Kauṣītaki and the rest, on the other hand, the excellence of the vital- breath is demonstrated, but the attributes of speech and the rest are not ascribed to it (Kauṣ. 2. 14). The attributes in question are those belonging to speech, the eye, the ear and the mind,—namely, being the richest being the support, being prosperity and being the abode (respectively), to be known from the following texts: "He who, verily, knows the richest . . . . Speech, forsooth, is the richest" (Bṛh. 6.1.2; Chānd. 5 1.2), "He who, verily, knows the support . . . . The eye, forsooth, is the support" (Bṛh. 6 1.3; Chānd. 5 1.3), "He who, verily, knows prosperity . . . . The ear, verily, is prosperity" (Bṛh. 6.1 4; Chānd. 4.1.4), "He who, verily, knows the abode . . . . The mind, verily, is the abode" (Bṛh. 6 15; Chānd 5.1.5) and so on. On the doubt, viz. whether these attributes are to be included in the meditations on the vital-breath of the Kauṣītakins, or not, the ¹ An exactly similar passage—omitting only the word 'svānām', is Chānd. 5.1.1. ² This is evidently a mis-quotation, since it is traceable neither in the Chānd nor in the Bṛh. ³ Cf. Chānd. 5 1.6.—"Now the sense-organs disputed among themselves about self-superiority " ⁴ Cf Bṛh. 6.1.4.—"She (i.e. speech) said: 'Verily, wherein I am the richest, therein you are the richest'."

596 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 10. ADH. 3.] prima facie view is that since they have not been mentioned in those scriptural texts as belonging to the vital-breath, they are not to be so included. With regard to it, we reply "These," i.e. the attributes of being richest and the best belonging to speech and so on, are to be accepted as belonging to the vital-breath, "elsewhere" than in the Chāndogya and the rest, i e in the meditations on the vital-breath of the Kauṣī- takins as well. Why? "On account of the non-difference of every- thing," i c because in all the three dialogues the cause of the seniority and excellence of the vital-breath, the object to be meditated on, is the very same Just as in the meditations on the vital-breath in the Chāndogya and the rest, the dependence of speech and the rest and of the body on the vital-breath, as well as the connection of the vital- breath with the attributes of being the richest and the rest have been stated with a view to establishing the seniority and excellence of the vital-breath,—so in the meditations on the vital-breath in the Kauṣītaki too, the attributes of speech and the rest, such as being the richest and so on, have been stated with the same view to establishing the seniority and excellence of the vital-breath. The text: "Then these divi- nities said to Father Prajāpati 'Who among us is the best?' He, Prajāpati, said: 'That one among you, on whose departure the body appears to be most miserable, is the best'. Then speech went out",¹ and so on, shows that speech and the rest, their attributes, as well as the body depend on the vital-breath. Here, their own attributes of being the richest and the rest are not attributed to the vital-breath by speech and the rest. Hence they are to be ascribed to the vital-breath,—this is established Here ends the section entitled "Non-difference of everything" (3). COMPARISON Śāṃkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha The interpretation of the phrase: "Sarvābhedāt" different, viz. "on account of the non-difference of the prāṇa-vidyā in the three Upaniṣads". That is, the meditation on the vital-breath is every- 1 Cf the very similar passages in Chānd. 5.1 7–5.1.8.

{sū. 3. 3 11. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 597 where the same, and hence the special features mentioned in one place are to be ascribed to others ¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 11 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikarana by itself, concerned with an entirely different topic, viz the acts of the Lord Hence the sūtra: "(The acts of the Lord, viz. the deeds performed by him in His infancy and so on are eternal) on account of the non-difference of all (viz. of the Lord and His companions) they (manifest themselves) elsewhere (i.e. in another place and time)". That is, the Lord and His companions, viz. the freed souls, exist subsequently in other places and times and enact the same parts In this sense, those acts of the Lord which He performs through His cit-śakti are eternal, while those acts which He performs through matter and so on are non-eternal ² Adhikarana 4. The section entitled "Bliss". (Sūtras 11–17) SŪTRA 11 "BLISS AND THE REST (ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD EVERYWHERE), (ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DIFFERENCE) OF THE CHIEF." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The substratum of attributes (viz. Brahman) being the same, the attributes like "bliss and the rest" are to be inserted in all the meditations on the Highest. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, the question of the combination of the essential attributes of Brahman is being considered. The phrase: 'On account of non-difference' is to be supplied (from the preceding aphorism). On the doubt, viz. whether the attributes of Brahman, such as, bliss and the rest, are to be included in all meditations on Brahman or not—the suggestion is: these attributes are not to be so included, because the texts of every Vedānta are ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.10, p. 770; Bh. B. 3.3.10, p. 171; ŚK. B. 3.3.10, pp. 298 ff. ² G.B. 3.3.11, pp. 130–133, Chap. 3.

598 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 12. ADH. 4 ] complete by themselves and do not require other texts to complete their meaning, because there is no restriction with regard to the inclusion of qualities not mentioned in a particular section; and because the meditating devotees can attain their goals from that very knowledge which they derive from a particular section where certain attributes are recorded,— We reply: On account of the sameness "of the chief ", i.e. as Brahman, the substratum of attributes, is the common object to be meditated on in all these Brahma-vidyās, His attributes, viz "bliss and the rest", are to be comprised everywhere It being impossible for texts to have a complete sense in isolation, the attributes, not mentioned in a particular section, should, nevertheless, be inserted there from another section for the benefit of meditating devotees Baladeva This is sūtra 12 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikarana by itself. Interpretation same. SŪTRA 12 "(THERE IS) NO RELEVANCY OF (THE ATTRIBUTES OF) HAVING JOY FOR THE HEAD AND THE REST, FOR (THERE WILL BE) IN- CREASE AND DECREASE (ON THE PART OF BRAHMAN) IF (THERE BE) DIFFERENCE (OF LIMBS ON HIS PART) " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The attributes of having joy for the head and the rest do not constitute the essential nature and attributes of the Highest,—since "if there be difference" of limbs like the head and the rest, then there will result increase and decrease on the part of Brahman. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. then, on account of the non-difference of Brahman, the attributes, mentioned in the Taittirīya-text: "Of him joy alone is the head, delight the right wing, excessive delight the left wing, bliss the soul, Brahman the tail, the foundation " (Tait. 2.5), too should be comprised everywhere like His essential attributes of bliss and the rest,—the author replies:

[sū. 3. 3. 13. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 599 The attributes of having joy for the head and the rest are not necessary for a clear understanding of the nature and attributes of Brahman,—since they are not His essential attributes. Otherwise, "if there be difference" of limbs like the head and the rest, then there must be "increase and decrease" on the part of Brahman. If that be so, texts like "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait. 2.1) will come to be contradicted. COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara The interpretation of the last portion, viz. 'upacayāpacayau hi bhede" different, viz. "because increase and decrease are possible only if there be difference". That is, lower and higher degrees like joy, delight, excessive delight, bliss and so on, which are all different, are possible only if there be a plurality of beings, i e only on the part of ordinary enjoyers, (and hence they are not possible on the part of Brahman who is one only). Śrīkaṇṭha He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself SŪTRA 13 "BUT THE OTHER (ATTRIBUTES ARE TO BE COMBINED), ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAMENESS OF THE PURPORT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "But" as the substratum of attributes (viz. Brahman) is the same everywhere, the attributes like bliss and the rest are to be combined. Vedānta-kaustubha "But" bliss and the rest, "other" than (the attributes of) having the joy as the head and so on, are to be supplied everywhere, "on account of the sameness of the purport", i.e. "on account of the sameness", i.e. identity everywhere, "of the purport", i.e. of the object to be demonstrated, viz. Brahman, the substratum of attributes. As He is not described as a person everywhere, so those (attributes of having the joy for the head and so on), if applied (everywhere),

600 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 14. ADH. 4.] would be purposeless. In order that there may be a clear knowledge of the real nature of Brahman, bliss and the rest are to be comprised everywhere, as they are connected with the real nature of Brahman This aphorism is meant for indicating the reason why bliss and the rest should be included everywhere, and also for suggesting that it is simply meaningless to include others everywhere COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation of the phrase: “artha-sāmānyāt different, viz. “on account of (their) equality with the object itself”. That is, the attributes of bliss and the rest, determining the very nature of the thing (viz. Brahman) are similar to the thing itself and are accordingly included in all meditations just like the thing itself.¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 14 in his commentary. Literal interpretation different, though the conclusion is the same. Thus: “But others (i.e. the other attributes mentioned in the Taittirīya) (are to be com- bined everywhere), on account of the sameness of the result”. That is, the meditation on Brahman, as possessed of the attributes of all- pervasiveness and the rest, mentioned in the Taittirīya, leads to the attainment of Brahman, just as the meditation on Him as possessed of other attributes, mentioned in other Vedāntas, does.² SŪTRA 14 “(THE DESIGNATION OF BRAHMAN AS HAVING JOY FOR HIS HEAD AND SO ON IS) FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEDITATION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF (ANOTHER) PURPOSE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The designation: “Of him, joy alone is the head” (Tait. 2.5 ³) and so on, on the other hand, serve the purpose of meditation, “on account of the absence of ” any other “purpose”. ¹ Śrī B. 3.3.13, p. 277, Part 1; Śk. B. 3.3.13, Part 9. ² G.B 3.3.14, p. 137, Chap. 3. ³ R.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 14. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 601 Vedānta-kaustubha In that case, the teaching of the attributes of having joy for the head and the rest will have no meaning,—to this the author replies. The teaching, concerned with determining Brahman as a person, viz. “Of him, joy alone is the head” (Tait. 2.5) and so on, on the other hand, is “for the purpose of meditation”, i.e. for the sake of helping easy comprehension. That is, in the absence of any other purpose, this alone is the purpose of such a designation. COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara They begin a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. a discussion about a text in the Kaṭho- paniṣad Thus, in Kaṭha 3.10–3.11 it is said that sense-objects are higher than the sense-organs, the mind is higher than the sense-objects and so on and finally the Person is said to be the highest of all. The question is as to whether each of these, viz. sense-objects and so on, is high or only the Person. The answer is given in this sūtra thus: “(The Person alone is designated as the High) for the purpose of meditation, (and not others) on account of the absence of purpose”. That is, there is no necessity for designating the sense-objects, the sense-organs and the rest as high, while there is such a necessity for designating the Person as high, viz.—meditation.¹ Śrīkaṇṭha He also begins a new adhikaraṇa here (four sūtras), concerned with the question, viz. whether the self consisting of food and the rest (Tait. 2.2 ff.) too are to be meditated on constantly as the self consisting of bliss is. The answer is: “(They aro not to be meditated on constantly) on account of the absence of purpose (for such modi- tations)”. That is, the meditations on the self consisting of food and the rest have a purpose only so long as the self consisting of bliss is not reached. But when it is reached, they becomo meaningless. Hence, such meditations are not to be practised perpetually.² ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.14, pp. 773-774; Bh. B. 3.3.14, p. 180. ² ŚK. B. 3.3.14.