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

[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.

[SŪ 3. 3. 15. 602 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.] SŪTRA 15 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE TERM 'SELF' ALSO" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha As head, wings and the rest cannot possibly belong to the soul, designated thus: "Another internal self" (Tait 2 5), that designation serves the purpose of meditation on Him. Vedānta-kaustubha That the designation. "Joy alone is the head" (Tait. 2.5) in the beginning of the text about that which consists of bliss serves the purpose of meditation and is concerned only with demonstrating (Brahman) as a person, is ascertained "from the term 'self' also". Thus, as head of the form of joy, wings and the rest cannot possibly belong to an object, which is denoted by the term 'self' in the text "Another internal self is that which consists of bliss" (Tait. 2 5), and the real nature of which is different from joy, delight, excessive delight and the rest,—it is merely for helping one to meditate on the self that in the text: "Of him, joy alone is the head" (Tait. 2.5) (the self) is designated as a person,—this is known from the term 'self' as well COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara They conclude here the discussion about the abovo Kaṭha-text. The immediately following passage designates the Person as the self. This also proves that the Person alone is intended to be designated as high. The designation of the rest as high is simply for the purpose of showing the supremacy of the Person.¹ Śrīkaṇṭha He continues the topic whether the selves consisting of food, consisting of the vital-breath and the rest are to be meditated on perpetually or not, and gives the second reason why they are not to be so meditated here. The term 'self' is applied to each of the selves, consisting of food and so on. This shows that these denote the pre- siding deities of food and the rest. Now, Brahman alone is to be ¹ Ś B. 3.3.15, p. 774; Bh. B 3.3.15, p. 180.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 16. ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 603 meditated on and not any other deity. For this reason too the selves consisting of food and so on are not to be meditated on.¹ SŪTRA 16 “(THERE IS THE) UNDERSTANDING OF THE SELF (IN THE TAITTI- RĪYA) AS IN OTHER (PLACES), ON ACCOUNT OF WHAT FOLLOWS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: “Another internal self” (Tait. 2.5²), by the term ‘self’ there is the “understanding of” the Supreme Soul alone, just as in the passage: “The soul, verily, was this, one alone, in the begin- ning” (Ait. Ār. 2.4.1³), by the term ‘self’ the Supreme Self alone is meant. Further, another text too, subsequent to the text about that which consists of bliss, viz. “He desired: ‘May I be many’ ” (Tait. 2.5⁴), supports this meaning. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. Since we know that in the preceding cases the term ‘self’ refers to what is not the self, it cannot be said that in the text: “Another internal self is that which consists of bliss” (Tait. 2.5) the term ‘self’ refers to the Self,—the author replies: In the text: “Another internal self” (Tait. 2.5), by the term ‘self’ there is the “understanding of the self”, i.e. the apprehension of the self, or the Supreme Soul alone. “As in other (places),” i.e. just as in a text other than the text: “Another internal self is that which consists of bliss” (Tait. 2.5),—viz. in the Aitareya-text: “The self, verily, was this, one alone, in the beginning, there was nothing else blinking. He thought: ‘Shall I create worlds?’ He created these worlds” (Ait. Ār. 2.4.1), by the term ‘self’ the Soul is under- stood, so is the case here. This is definitely ascertained also from a text which is subsequent to the text concerned with the soul ,consisting of bliss, viz. from the text: “He desired: ‘May I be many’ ” (Tait. 2.6). ¹ ŚK. B. 3.3.15, p 309, Part 9. ² R, ŚK. ³ P. 118. ⁴ R, B. 9

[SŪ. 3. 3. 17 604 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 4.] COMPARISON Saṁkara and Bhāskara They begin a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with a different problem, viz. a discussion about a passage in the Aitareya- āraṇyaka (2.4 1). The question is as to whether the term ‘self’ in this passage stands for Brahman or for Hiraṇyagarbha. The answer is: “(There is) the understanding of the self (i.e. Brahman) (by the term ‘self’ in the passage), as in other (places) (i.e. in Tait. 2 1, etc ), on account of what follows (1.e. the word ‘perceives’)”.¹ Śrīkaṇṭha He continues the above topic, viz. whether the selves consisting of food and so on are to be meditated on or not. The answer is that as the self consisting of bliss is nothing but the Supreme Brahman, that alone is to be meditated on and not the other selves. Hence the sūtra. “(In Tait. 2.5 by the term ‘self’ there is) the understanding of the self (i e. Brahman), as in other places (i.e. in Tait. 2.1, etc.), (this is known also) from what follows”. Thus, literal interpretation is the same, though import different.² SŪTRA 17 “IF IT BE OBJECTED • ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONNECTION (OF THE TERM ‘SELF’ WITH WHAT IS NOT-SELF, THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDING OF SELF HERE, WE REPLY.) THERE MAY BE (SUCH AN UNDERSTAND- ING), ON ACCOUNT OF ASCERTAINMENT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha If it be objected that since the term ‘self’ is found to refer to the vital-breath and the rest in the previous cases, in the text: “The self, consisting of bliss” (Tait 2.5³), the Supreme Self is not meant by the term ‘self’—(we reply:) “There may be” indeed such an understanding by that term,—as we know that in the previous cases ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.16, pp. 775 ff.; Bh. B. 3.3.16, p. 180. ² ŚK. B. 3.3.16, pp. 309-310, Part 9. ³ Not quoted by others. 9B

[sū. 3 3. 17. ADH. 4 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 605 too, the term ‘self’ refers to the not-self simply because those not-

• selves are viewed as the Supreme Self. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected that as in the previous cases, e.g. in the text. “Another internal self is that which consists of the vital-breath” (Tait. 2 2) and so on, the term ‘self’ refers to the not-self, so in the text: ‘Another internal self is that which consists of bliss” (Tait. 2 5) the Highest Self is not referred to by the term ‘self’,— (We reply:) “There may be” indeed the apprehension of the Highest Self by the term ‘self’. Why? “On account of ascertain- ment.” That is, we have, first, in mind the idea of the Highest Self, mentioned previously in the passage: “From him, verily, the ether arose” (Tait. 2.1); then, with a view to determining His nature and attributes, the term ‘self’ is made to refer to the selves consisting of food and so on, simply because they are viewed as the Highest Self 1 Hence it is established that attributes like bliss and the rest alone are to be combined for the sake of determining the real nature of the substratum of attributes (viz. Brahman), and not those of having joy for the head and the like which are not His (essential) attributes. Here ends the section entitled “Bliss” (4). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Here they conclude the discussion about the above Aitareya- āraṇyaka text. “If it be objected that on account of the connected meaning (of the passage as a whole, i.e. because of the reference to the creation of the world and so on, Hiraṇyagarbha is here denoted by the term ‘self’), (we reply:) there may be (the understanding of Brahman here) on account of ascertainment (viz. that the self is said to be the one).” 2 1 I.e. right from the beginning of the section we get the idea that the Highest Self is the topic of discussion, and hence the subsequent references to the not-self in the chapter are made with the Highest Self in mind. 2 Ś.B. 3.3.17, pp. 777-778, Bh B. 3.3.17, pp. 180-181. For Śaṁkara’s alternative explanation of these two sūtras, vide Ś.B. 3.3.17, pp. 338 ff.

606 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3 18. ADH. 5 ] Śrīkaṇṭha Here he concludes the discussion as to whether the selves consisting of food and the rest are to be meditated on or not. Hence the sūtra: “If it be objected that on account of the connection (of the term) ‘self’ with the selves consisting of food and so on, these latter too are to be meditated on like the self consisting of bliss, (we reply .) there must be the meditation on the self consisting of bliss alone), on account of ascertainment, (i.e. because the self consisting of bliss is known to be different from the other selves)”.¹ Adhikaraṇa 5: The section entitled “The tell- ing of a thing to be done”. (Sūtra 18) SŪTRA 18 “ON ACCOUNT OF THE TELLING OF A THING TO BE DONE, (ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY SMṚTI AND CUSTOM,) (THAT IS NOT ENJOINED BY THE TEXT HERE, BUT) SOMETHING NEW, (I.E. THE MEDITATION ON WATER AS THE DRESS OF THE VITAL-BREATH.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: “He should rinse the mouth with water when about to eat, and should rinse the mouth with water when he has eaten. Thus indeed he makes the breath non-naked” (Śat. Br. 14.9 2, 15²), the meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital-breath, not mentioned before, is enjoined, there being only a re-mention here, on the other hand, of the rinsing of the mouth with water, already established by Smṛti and custom.³ ¹ ŚK. B. 3.3.17, p. 310, Part 9. ² P. 1103, line 7. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK ³ I.e. the ordinary practice of rinsing the mouth with water before and after meals is not enjoined by Scripture here, since it is already enjoined by Smṛti and custom and Scripture does not enjoin what has already been enjoined Hence the text simply re-mentions this ordinary custom, but does not enjoin it. What it enjoins here is something new, viz. the meditation on water as the dress of the vital-breath.

[sū. 3. 3. 18. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 607 Vedānta-kaustubha Now a particular subsidiary part of the above-mentioned medita- tion on the vital-breath is being considered. In the Vājasaneyaka it is said that the vital-breath asked speech and the rest · ‘What is my food, what is my dress?’ (Bṛh. 6.1.14; Śat. Br. 14.9.2, 14¹). They replied: ‘“Whatever there is here, as far as dogs, worms, crawling and flying insects,—that is your food; water is your dress”’ (Bṛh. 6.1.14, Śat. Br. 14.9.2, 14). After that we read: “Those versed in the Veda who know this rinse the mouth with water when they are about to eat, and rinse the mouth with water when they have eaten. So indeed they think that they are making the breath non-naked” (Bṛh 6 1.14), “Hence he who knows this should rinse the mouth with water when about to eat and should rinse the mouth with water when he has eaten. Thus indeed he makes the breath non-naked” (Śat. Br. 14 9.2, 15). In the very same manner, we read the following in the Chāndogya as well. “He said: ‘What will be my dress?’ ‘Water,’ they said. Hence, verily, those who are about to eat clothe it before and after with water. It is accustomed to receive a dress, it becomes non- naked” (Chānd. 5.2.2). Here the doubt is as to whether here the rinsing of the mouth is enjoined or the meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital- breath, while there is simply a re-mention of the rinsing of the mouth. If it be suggested · As in the text: “So indeed he makes the breath non-naked” (Śat. Br. 14 9.2, 15), there is no mention of an injunctive form referring to the meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital-breath, and as in this text: “He should rinse the mouth with water when about to eat” (Śat. Br. 14.9.2, 15), there is the mention of an injunctive form, it is the rinsing of the mouth that is enjoined here, and water is designated as forming the dress of the vital-breath for glorifying the rinsing of the mouth.— We reply: It is the meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital-breath—which is “something new”, i e. is something not mentioned before,—that is alone enjoined here. For this very reason there is the mention of clothing only ² in the Chāndogya: ‘They

¹ P. 1103, line 3. ² And no mention of the rinsing of the mouth with water

[SŪ. 3. 3. 18. 608 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] clothe it with water" (Chānd. 5.2 2) From the circumstance also of its being found together with the meditation on food as far as dogs and so on, (enjoined) in the text: "As far as dogs" (Bṛh 6.1.14; Śat. Br. 14.9.2, 14), it is known that the meditation on (water) as form- ing the dress (of the vital-breath) alone is what is enjoined here, but the rinsing of the mouth with water is not what is enjoined ¹. Why? "On account of the telling of a thing to be done," i.e. because of the telling, i.e. mention, of a thing to be done, i.e. of a duty to be performed daily, already established by Smṛti and custom, and simply re-men- tioned in the meditation on the vital-breath, as well for the sake of laying down a clothing of the vital-breath. Hence it is established that the meditation on the rinsing-water as forming the dress of the vital-breath is enjoined here as a subsidiary part of the meditation on the vital-breath, while there is simply a re-mention of the act of rinsing the mouth with water. Here ends the section entitled "The telling of a thing to be done" (5). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 19 in his commentary. He also takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, though concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the designation of the Lord as Father. He inter- prets the word "apūrva" in the sūtra as: similar ("a") to what precedes ("pūrva"). Hence the sūtra: ‘(The attributes of fatherhood and the like), similar to the preceding ones (viz. bliss, and so on) (are to be comprised in all meditations on Brahman), on account of the ¹ I.e. the preceding passage: "Whatever there is here, as far as dogs . . . that is your food", does not enjoin the use of the food of all kinds,—since that would be contrary to Scripture and impossible,—but merely enjoins the medita- tion on all food as the food of the vital-breath. Therefore, we must conclude that the text: "Water is your dress" also, which forms the immediate conti- nuation of the above passage, does not enjoin the act of rinsing the mouth with water, but only the meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital-breath.

[sŪ. 3. 3 19. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 609 statement of the effect, (i.e. the fruit, i e. because such meditations also lead to salvation)”.¹ Adhikaraṇa 6: The section ontitled “In the same”. (Sūtra 19) SŪTRA 19 “IN THE SAME (BRANCH) TOO, (IT IS) THUS, (I E. THERE IS IDENTITY OF VIDYĀS), ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DIFFERENCE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In a branch of the Vājasaneyins,² i e. in the ‘Mystery of fire’,³ viz. in the section which beginning: “Let one meditate on truth as Brahman” (Śat. Br. 10.6.3, 1 ⁴), continues: “Let one meditate on the self, consisting of mind” (Śat. Br. 10.6.3, 2 ⁵) and so on; as well as in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka text: “This person consists of mind” (Bṛh. 5.6.1 ⁶), the meditation taught by Śāṇḍilya is recorded And just as the vidyās, mentioned in different branches, are identical owing to the identity of the objects meditated on, so the Śāṇḍilya-vidyās, though mentioned in the same branch, are identical.⁷ The vidyās being the same, their special features are to be combined together. Vedānta-kaustubha Now (the author) points out the identity of the meditations mtuited by Śāṇḍilya. The meditation taught by Śāṇḍilya is recorded in the ‘Mystery of Fire’ in a branch of the Vājasaneyins thus: “Let one meditate on truth as Brahman. Now, verily, this person consists of thought. ¹ G.B. 3.3.19, pp. 143-144, Chap. 3. ² The followers of the white Yajur-veda. ³ The name of the tenth book of the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa. ⁴ P. 806, line 14. R, Bh. ⁵ Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ⁶ Op. cit. ⁷ Vide V.P.S. 3.3.2.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 19. 610 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.] With whatever thought he departs from this world, that he becomes on departing to the other world. Let him meditate on the self, consist- ing of mind, having the breath for its body, of the form of light, having true resolves, having the ether for its soul" ¹ (Śat. Br. 10.6.3, 1-2 ²). In that very branch, i.e. in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, that medita- tion is recorded once again thus: "This person within this heart consists of mind, is of the nature of light, is like a grain of rice or a barley-corn. He, verily, is the ruler of all, the Lord of all, governs all this, whatsoever there is" (Bṛh. 5.6.1). Here the doubt is as to whether the two vidyās mentioned in the 'Mystery of Fire' and Bṛhadāraṇyaka are identical or not. The suggestion being that on account of repetition the vidyās are different, just as on account of the five-fold repetition, the preliminary offerings are so, — We reply: Just as the vidyās mentioned in different branches are the same, and consequently their special features are combined, so "in the same", i.e. in the same branch, the vidyās are identical, and conse- quently their special features are combined. Why? "On account of non-difference," i.e. because of the identity, in both the places, of the objects to be meditated on, viz. (the selves) endowed with the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest. If it be objected: There may be identity of vidyās in both the cases, and the combination of the attributes like 'being the ruler of all' and so on. But the laying down, over again, of (the attributes like) 'consisting of mind' and the rest does not stand to reason, — for if there be the laying down of the unknown attributes in one place, then the realization of our purpose results simply through a combination of them elsewhere.³ — ¹ The phrase 'having the ether for its soul' is put immediately after 'of the form of light'. The text really is: " . . . . having the form of light, having the ether for its soul, changing its shape at will, swift as thought, having true resolves, having true purposes . . . ." ² P. 806, lines 14-16. Cf. a very similar Śāṇḍilya-vidyā in Chānd. 3.14.1-4. ³ I.e. the attributes like 'being the ruler of all', etc., mentioned in the Bṛh., but not in the Śat. Br., — are to be inserted in the latter, and as such they serve a useful purpose. But the attributes like 'consisting of mind', etc. — mentioned in both the Bṛh. and Śat. Br. — are mere useless repetitions, serving no purpose.

[sū. 3. 3. 19. ADH 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 611 We reply No, because the mention of several already-mentioned attributes serves the purpose of recognition ¹ Hence it is established that in both cases the vidyās are identical. Here ends the section entitled “In the same” (6). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 20 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the problem whether the Lord is to be meditated on as a pure soul or as possessed of a body. The prima facie view is that He is to be meditated on as a pure soul only, for if one is to meditate on the form of the Lord, then he will have to meditate on His eye sometimes, on His ears sometimes and so on and as such no uniform and uninterrupted flow of the devotional sentiment, which alone is the means to salvation, will be possible. The answer is given in this sūtra. He reads “samāna” instead of “samāne”. Hence the sūtra. “Even (in the meditation on the form of the Lord, the sentiment is) the same thus, on account of the non-difference (of the Lord’s different limbs, such as eyes, and so on, with His very self)”. That is, just as a golden image is gold throughout and by looking at the different parts of the image, viz. the eyes and so on, one does not get different ideas, but only one idea, viz. that of gold, so the different parts of the Lord are identical with the Lord Himself and hence they do not give rise to different ideas, but to one idea of the Lord. Hence the meditation on the Lord as having a form does indeed lead to release ² ¹ I.e. in order that we may recognize the two vidyās to be identical, there must be mentioned some features common to both. Hence the repetition of certain attributes in two identical vidyās is not useless. ² G.B. 3.3.20, p. 145, Chap. 3.—“Evam api cakṣurādīnām vailakṣaṇyena bhāne’pi samāna eka-rasaḥ sa eva hiraṇya-pratimādi vat bhagavān vodhyaḥ.”

612 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 20 ADH 7.] Adhikaraṇa 7: The section entitled "The con- nection". (Sūtras 20–22) PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 20) SŪTRA 20 "ON ACCOUNT OF CONNECTION, SO ELSEWHERE ALSO" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Just as the Śāṇḍilya-vidyās are identical, and through connection with them, there is the combination of special features, "so" on account of their connection with the same vidyā through the introductory passage: "Truth is Brahman" (Bṛh 5.4.1 ¹), the two names, mentioned in the scriptural texts: "His secret name is 'Day'—this in reference to the presiding deities" (Brh. 5.5 3 ²), "His secret name is 'I'—this in reference to the self" (Bṛh. 5 5 4 ³), are to be combined,—this is the prima facie view. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, having suggested a prima facie view, viz Just as owing to the identity of the objects to be meditated on, there is combination of attributes in the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, so there is combination of the names in the meditation on the true Brahman also, having the mystic words⁴ for His body,—(the author) disposes of it in two aphorisms. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, we read, beginning: "Truth is Brahman" (Bṛh. 5.4.1), and continuing: "Now the real is the yonder sun. The Person who is there in that orb and the Person who is here in the right eye" (Bṛh. 5 5.2) and so on. Here, having declared that the true Brahman is the object to be meditated on—in the orb of the sun as well as in the right eye—as having the mystic words as His body in the passage: "Bhūr is his head, Bhuvar is his arms, Svar is his feet" (Bṛh. 5.5.3), the text teaches two secret names as complementary to the meditation. Here, the true Brahman, the support of the sun and the support of the eye, is successively stated to have the name 'Day' and the name 'I', thus: "His secret name is 'Day'—this in reference to the presiding deities" (Bṛh. 5.5.3), "His secret name is 'I'—this in reference to the self" (Bṛh. 5.5.4).

¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. ³ Op. cit. ⁴ Viz. Bhūr, Bhuvar and Svar

[SŪ. 3. 3. 21. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 613 Here the doubt is as to whether the stated names are each to be meditated on singly in its own place (i e. where mentioned), or whether each is to be meditated on in both the places as combined with the other Just as in the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā there is a mutual combination of attributes on account of their connection with an identical vidyā, “so elsewhere too”, i e in the case of the orb of the sun and the eye, the two names are to be mutually combined in both the places “on account of their connection” with an identical vidyā,—this is the meaning of the prima facie aphorism. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 21 in his commentary He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (five sūtras), concerned with the worship of the aveśāvatāras or God-possessed souls like Nārada and so on. The question is whether they too are to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes of the Lord Himself. This is the prima facie view: “On account of (their intimate) connection (with the Lord Himself), in others also (i.e. the God-possessed souls), (are to be meditated on) thus, (i.e. as possessed of the attributes of the Lord ”.¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 21-22) SŪTRA 21 “OR NOT, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha But the correct conclusion is that “on account of the difference” of place, (such) a combination is “not” appropriate. Vedānta-kaustubha (The author) refutes (the above view). The names are “not” to be combined. Why? “On account of difference,” i.e on account of the difference of place. Just as the attribute, stated of a teacher when seated, does not belong to him ¹ G B. 3.3.21, p. 147, Chap. 3.

614 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 3. 22. ADH. 7.] when walking, so exactly on account of the difference of the forms of Brahman,—who is one indeed,—in consequence of His connection with those respective places, (viz. the orb of the sun and the eye), there is difference of vidyās, and as such no combination. Thus, in one case, truth is to be meditated on as connected with the locality of the sun, and here the name: "His secret name is 'Day'—this is in reference to the presiding deities" (Bṛh. 5.5.3) is appropriate. The insertion of such a name to the locality of the eye is not possible. In the other case, on the other hand, it is to be meditated on as connected with the locality of the eye, and here the name: ' His secret name is 'I'—this is in reference to the self" (Bṛh 5.5.4) is appropriate. There can be no insertion of it to the locality of the sun In the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, on the contrary, there is no difference of place, since the object to be meditated on is, in both the cases, situated within the heart. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 22 in his commentary. It answers the prima facie view. He reads "aviśeṣāt" instead of "viśeṣāt". Hence the sūtra: "Or not, (i.e. the God-possessed souls are not to be worshipped as possessed of all God-like attributes,) on account of (their) non-difference (from other souls)". That is, the God-possessed souls too are after all jīvas and hence they are to be highly venerated, but not worshipped like the Lord Himself ¹ SŪTRA 22 "AND (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The scriptural text, viz. "The form of this one is the very same as the form of that one" (Chānd. 1 7.5 ²), "shows" the absence of a combination of the attributes of that which is situated within the sun and that which is situated within the eye. ¹ G.B. 3.3 22, p. 147, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh.