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

[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.

[Sū. 3. 3. 22. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 615 Vedānta-kaustubha In another place, a scriptural text concerned with transference “shows” the absence of a combination of the attributes of that which is situated in the sun and that which is situated in the eye. Thus, the scriptural text concerned with transference, viz. “The form of this one is the very same as the form of that one” (Chānd 1.7.5) transfers the form of the Person abiding in the sun to the Person abiding in the eye. And this (text) clearly indicates the absence of a combination of attributes in such a case. If there were any combination of attri- butes, then the transference would have been meaningless ¹ Hence it is established that there is no combination of the names Here ends the section entitled “The connection” (7). COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha He takes this sūtra as constituting a new adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the Maṇḍala-vidyā, or the meditation on the Person within the orb of the sun, in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 1 6.6) and the Mahā-nārāyaṇa (Mahā. 12.2) Upaniṣads, and concludes that the two vidyās are identical, since Scripture “shows” their identity ² Baladeva This is sūtra 23 in his commentary. He gives here a second reason why the God-possessed souls are not to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes of the Lord Himself: “And (Scripture, viz. Chānd. 7.1.1) shows”. That is, the above text shows that ¹ I.e. a special transference, identifying two things, is necessary only when the two things are naturally different. E.g. a king is not, as a rule, expressly mentioned to be rich, for it is understood that all kings are naturally rich. Hence we simply say: ‘He is a king’. But we say, ‘He is a servant and rich’, for the quality of being rich does not, as a rule, belong to servants and any exception has to be expressly mentioned Similarly, since here the form of the person within the sun and the form of the person within the eye are expressly mentioned to be identical, it is clear that there is no natural identity between them, so that no combinations of their attributes, names and so on are possible. ² ŚK. B. 3.3.22, pp. 319-320, Part 9.

616 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 23. ADH. 8.] Nārada, a God-possessed soul, approached Sanatkumāra with a view to learning about the Supreme Soul from him. This proves that the God-possessed souls are not perfect like the Lord. Hence they cannot be worshipped as possessed of His attributes.¹ Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled “Holding together”. (Sūtra 23) SŪTRA 23 “(THE ATTRIBUTES LIKE) HOLDING TOGETHER AND PERVADING THE HEAVEN TOO (ARE NOT TO BE INSERTED IN ALL VIDYĀS) AND FOR THIS REASON.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Owing to the very same difference of places,² there is no insertion, in other vidyās, of the attributes like “holding together, pervading the heaven” and so on, laid down in the manual of the Taittirīyas ³ thus: “The powers of which Brahman is the oldest, were held together. Brahman stretched out the heaven, the oldest, in the beginning” (Tait. Br. 2.4.7, 10 ⁴). Vedānta-kaustubha Now (the author) is extending the above-mentioned maxim to other cases. In the manual of the Taittirīyas, i e. in the supplementary writings of the Rāṇāyanīyas, a mass of attributes belonging to Brahman, such as, holding the powers together, pervading the heaven and so on, is recorded in the passage: “The powers of which Brahman is the oldest, were held together. Brahman stretched out the heaven, the oldest, in the beginning. Brahman was born first among all beings.⁵ Who then is fit to rival that Brahman?” (Tait. Br. 2.4.7, 10). The sense is: ‘energies’—here the word ‘vīryyāḥ’ (in the masculine gender) means ‘vīryyāṇi’ (in the neuter gender)—have Brahman as their ¹ G.B 3.3.23, p. 148, Chap. 3. ² Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.21. ³ A school of the Yajur-veda ⁴ Pp. 252-253. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. Cf. Athar. V. 19.22.21, 30—same, only “Brahma-jyeṣṭhā sambhṛtā vīryyāṇi”,—slightly different. ⁵ The text reads: “Ṛtasya Brahma prathamota jajñe”.

[sū. 3. 3. 23. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 617 ‘oldest’, i.e. as their chief,—that means: they are the attributes of Brahman. (They are) ‘held together’, i.e supported, by the sub- stratum of the attributes, (viz. Brahman),—hereby (Brahman's attri- bute of) holding the powers together is designated. That chiefest Brahman stretched out the heaven,—hereby (Brahman's attribute of) pervading the heaven is designated. Here the doubt is as to whether these attributes of Brahman are to be inserted in the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest,—that are meditations on Brahman—enjoined in their (i.e. Rānāyanīyas's) Upaniṣads, or not to be inserted, a different kind of meditation (on Brahman) as possessed of these attributes being enjoined here. On the suggestion that they are to be inserted, We reply. Just as the two names are not combined, so the group of attributes like “holding together and pervading the heaven” and so on too is not to be combined. Why? “For this reason,” i.e. on account of the very same difference, i e. on account of the difference of abodes In the Śāṇḍilya-vidyās and the rest, Brahman is declared to have a small abode in the texts: “This soul of mine within the heart” (Chānd. 3.14.3, 4). Here, there (is no mention of the) attribute of occupying a place that is not small, resulting from (His) ‘pervading the heaven’, as well as of other attributes of occupying a place that is not small, such as, ‘holding together’ and the rest, resulting from (their) association with that Hence it is established that there is a separate meditation (on Brahman) as qualified by the attributes of holding the powers together, pervading the heaven and so on. Here ends the section entitled “Holding together” (8). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 24 in his commentary. He continues the topic that the God-possessed souls are not to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: “And (the attributes like) holding together and pervading the heaven too (are not to be combined in the meditations on the God-possessed souls) also for this reason (i.e. because they are not equal to the Lord) ”.¹ ¹ G.B. 3.3.24, pp. 148-149, Chap. 3.

618 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 24. ADH. 9.] Adhikaraṇa 9 The section entitled "The me- ditation on the Person". (Sūtra 24) SŪTRA 24 “AND EVEN IN THE MEDITATION ON THE PERSON (THERE IS NO TRANSFERENCE OF ATTRIBUTES), ON ACCOUNT OF OTHERS BEING NOT RECORDED” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha As “even in the meditation on the person”,—recorded in the Chāndogya thus: “The person, verily, is a sacrifice” (Chānd. 3 16.1 ¹) and in the manual of the Taittirīyas thus: “For him who knows thus” (Tait. Ār. 10 64; ² Mahānār. 25.1),—the details mentioned in one place, viz. “His twenty-four years are the morning libation” (Chānd. 3.16.1), are not recorded in another, so the vidyās are different. Vedānta-kaustubha Previously, in accordance with the reason (stated in Br. Su. 3. 3 21): ‘On account of difference’, the meditation on (Brahman) as endowed with the attributes like holding together and so on was demonstrated to be different from the meditations on Brahman as taught by Śāṇḍilya and others. Now, by showing the difference of the meditations on the person, (the author) is removing the doubt that in the case of meditations on the person, the meditations are identical on account of the non-difference of names and the rest. The meditation on the person is recorded in the Chāndogya in the Rahasya-brāhmaṇa of the Tāṇḍins and the Paiṅgins thus: “The person, verily, is a sacrifice. His twenty-four years are the morning libation” (Chānd. 3 16.1), “Now the forty-four years are the mid-day libation” (Chānd. 3.16.3), “Now the forty-eight years are the third libation” (Chānd. 3.16.5) and so on. In the manuals of the Taitti- rīyas too, there is a meditation on the person in the first section: “For him who knows thus, the soul of the sacrifice is the sacrificer, faith his wife, his body the fuel, his breast the sacrificial altar, his body-hairs the sacrificial grass” (Tait. Ār. 10.64; Mahānār. 25.1). Here the doubt is as to whether the meditations recorded in the two places are different or identical. If it be suggested that on account ¹ R, ŚK. ² P. 779. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 24. ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 619 of the non-difference of names and the rest, the meditations are the same,—(the author) states the correct conclusion: “Even in the meditation on the person”. The meditations on the person are different Why ? Because “even in the meditation on the person” of the Chāndogya and the Taittirīya-manual, recorded without distinction, the attributes which are mutually different are “not recorded”, i.e. not mentioned, in the other place. Thus, in the Chāndogya, the life of a person, up to his hundred and sixteen years, divided thrice, is imagined to be a libation. In the Taittirīya-manual, on the other hand, in the text. “The evening, the morning and the mid-day are the libations” (Tait. Ār. 10 64; Mahānār. 25.1), three libations are imagined, but in the Chāndogya three libations are not imagined.¹ Moreover, in the Chāndogya, the desire to eat and the rest are imagined to be the purificatory ceremony and so on,² but not in the Taittirīya-manuals. In the Chāndogya, a person is imagined to be a sacrifice thus: “The person, verily, is a sacrifice” (Chānd 3.16.1), but his soul and the rest are not imagined to be the sacrificer and so on In the Taittirīya- manual, on the other hand, the soul of the person is imagined to be a sacrifice and so on thus: “For him who knows thus, the soul of the sacrifice is the sacrificer” (Ait. Ār. 10 64; Mahānār. 25.1 ³). Hence there is a difference of form in the two cases, since everywhere the difference of special points is the cause of the difference of meditation. There is a difference of connection with fruit as well. In the Chāndogya, to begin with, the fruit of the meditation on the person is the attain- ment of longevity.⁴ In the Taittirīya-manuals, on the other hand, the attainment of Brahman is the fruit of the meditation on the person. Thus, having set forth the meditation on Brahman in the previous section thus: “Let him unite himself with you, the great Brahman, ¹ In the Chāndogya, the parts of the one and the same thing are fancifully represented as three libations; while in the Taittirīya-manuals three different things are so represented. ² Vide Chānd. 3.16.1–5. “When he desires to eat and drink and does not enjoy himself—that is his purificatory ceremony,” etc. ' ³ The Chāndogya stops at identifying a person with a sacrifice, but does not enter into any details. The Taittirīya-manuals differ from the Chāndogya not only in not identifying a person with a sacrifice, but also in entering into greater details. ⁴ Vide Chānd. 3.16.7. “He who knows this lives for hundred and sixteen years.” 10

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

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

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