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

[sū. 3. 3. 26. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 625 Now, in the Upaniṣad of the Tāṇḍins, as well as in the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda, the abandonment of merit and demerit is declared. In the text of the Śāṭyāyanins, the obtainment of merit and demerit by the dear and the not dear is declared. In the text of the Kauṣītakins, on the other hand, both are declared. This being the case, there is no room for any doubt in the case where both abandoning and taking are mentioned. Where there is the direct mention of taking only, there abandoning too is implied, since taking is impossible without (prior) abandoning ¹ But where only abandoning is mentioned, there the following (question) is to be considered: The doubt is as to whether the taking of the abandoned merit and demerit, which taking is mentioned elsewhere, is to be inserted in the Upaniṣad of the Tāṇḍins and in the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda, or not. On the suggestion, viz. It is not to be inserted owing to the force of separate mention. Otherwise, the double implication (viz. abandoning and taking)—which is the result of such an insertion —being already established in the cases of the two texts of the Tāṇḍins and the followers of the Atharva-veda through such an insertion from the text of the Kauṣītakins, the mention of abandoning in those two texts must become useless,²— We reply: “But in the abandonment, on account of the word ‘taking’ being supplementary”. The word “but” disposes of the (above) prima facie view. “In the abandonment,” i.e. in the text which designates abandoning only, taking is to be inserted. Why? “On account of the word ‘taking’ being supplementary,” i.e. on account of the word ‘taking’ being supplementary to the word ‘abandoning’. The sense is that in the Upaniṣad of the Kauṣītakins, the text desig- nating the taking of the good and evil deeds is recorded as being supplementary to the text designating the abandoning of the good and evil deeds. Similarly here too, it is essential that the merits and demerits, abandoned by a knower, should be obtained by others. (The author) states a number of parallel instances, illustrating ¹ Hence these two cases present no difficulty. ² I.e. in the text of the Kauṣītakins both abandoning and taking are men- tioned, while in the texts of the Tāṇḍins and the followers of the Atharva-veda only abandoning is mentioned. Now if it be said that taking is inserted from the first to the last two, then abandoning too may very well be so inserted. In that case, the mention of abandoning in the last two texts becomes meaningless.

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

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

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

¹ R.                                                                                             ² Ś, Bh, Śk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sū. 3. 3. 31. 640 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 13 ] The path beginning with light is mentioned in certain vidyās, such as, Upakosala-vidyā ¹, Pañcāgni-vidyā ², Dahara-vidyā ³ and so on, but is not mentioned in the Madhu-vidyā ⁴, Śāṇḍilya- ¹ Upakosala-vidyā or the knowledge obtained by Upakosala, the disciple of Satyakāma Jābāla. Vide Chānd. 4.10–4.15. The story begins thus: Upakosala Kāmalāyana dwelt with Satyakāma Jābāla as a student of sacred knowledge, and for twelve years he tended the fires. But his teacher did not allow him to return home, nor did he teach him the knowledge of Brahman, but went off on a journey. Thereupon, Upakosala, filled with grief, began to fast. At this the three fires, Gārhapatya, Anvāhāryya and Āhavanīya took pity on him and each taught him the Agni-vidyā and the Ātma-vidyā, and told him that the teacher would teach him the path. When the teacher returned, he proceeded to instruct Upakosala further thus: "That Person who is seen within the eye is the soul, that is the immortal, the fearless, that is Brahman" (Chānd. 4.15.1)—"Now, whether they perform cremation obsequies in the case of such a person, (i.e. who knows this vidyā), or not, they (i.e. the dead) pass over to light, from light to the day, from day to the fortnight of the waxing moon, from the fortnight of the waxing moon to the six months of the northern progress of the sun, from those months to the year, from the year to the sun, from the sun to the moon, from the moon to lightning". Chānd. 4.15.5. Vide V. K. 1.2.13. ² Pañcāgni-vidyā or the doctrine of the five fires, taught to Gautama by King Pravāhaṇa. Vide Bṛh. 6.2; Chānd. 5.4–5.10. For detailed account see V.K. 3.1.1. ³ Dahara-vidyā or the doctrine of the Small, i.e. the doctrine that the Universal Soul is within the heart of man. Vide Chānd. 8.1–8.8; Mahānār. 10.7. The doctrine begins thus: "Now, what is here in this city of Brahman is a small lotus-chamber, small is the ether within that. What is within that should be searched for, that certainly is what one should desire to understand" (Chānd. 8.1.1), and ends: "Now, as a great extending highway goes to two villages, this one and the yonder, even so these rays of the sun go to two worlds, this one and the yonder. They extend from the yonder sun and enter into these veins. They extend from the veins and enter into the yonder sun" (Chānd. 8.6.2). "But when he thus departs from the body, then he ascends upwards through those very rays of the sun. With the thought 'Om', forsooth, he passes up. As quickly as one could direct one's mind to it, he goes to the sun. That, certainly, is the door to the world (of Brahman), an entrance for knowers, a stopping for non-knowers" (Chānd. 8.6.5). Vide V. K. 1.3.14–23; 3.3.38. ⁴ Madhu-vidyā or the doctrine of the honey, i.e. the doctrine of the co- relativity of all things, cosmic and personal, and the immanence of the soul, taught to the two Aśvinis by Dadhyāñc Ātharvaṇa. Vide Bṛh. 2.5.6–19. It begins: "This earth is the honey for all creatures and all creatures are honey for this earth. This shining immortal Person who is in this earth, and with reference to the self, this shining immortal Person who is in the embodied soul,— he, indeed, is this Soul, this Immortal, this ALL" (Bṛh. 2.5.1) and goes on with

[sū. 3. 3. 31. ADH. 13 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 641 vidyā 1, Vaiśvānara-vidyā 2 and the rest. Hence the doubt is as to whether the path belongs only to those who are possessed of the Upakosala-vidyā and the rest, or to all those who possess the Brahma- vidyā. With regard to it, the prima facie view is as follows: It is proper that the path should belong only to those who are possessed of the vidyās in which it is mentioned, on account of the force of the general subject-matter, and not to others,—so is the restriction. With regard to it, we reply: "No restriction", i.e. there is no restriction that the path belongs only to those who possess the vidyās in which it is mentioned, but this path is open to all those who possess Brahma-vidyā. If it be objected that in that case, there will result contradiction with the general subject-matter, we say: "non-contradiction", since the general subject-matter is set aside by text 3. Whence is this known? "From word and inference," i.e. from Scripture and Smṛti, viz. from the scriptural texts: "Those who know this thus and those who worship faith and truth in the forest, they pass over to light" (Bṛh. 6.2.15) and so on; and from the Smṛti passage: "Fire, light, the day, the bright fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of the sun,—departing through these those who know Brahman go to Brahman" (Gītā 8.24) and so on. Here having stated that those who are devoted to the five fires and who know this heaven-world and the similar designations of water, fire, air, the sun, the quarters, the moon, lightning, thunder, space, law, truth, mankind, and soul. There is a different Madhu-vidyā, or the representation of the sun as the honey extracted from all the Vedas in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 3.1–3.11). For detailed account, vide V.K. 1.3.33, footnote 1, p. 335. 1 Śāṇḍilya-vidyā or the doctrine taught by Śāṇḍilya. Vide Bṛh. 5.6; Śat. Br. 10.6.3; Chānd. 3.14. For detailed account vide V.K. 3.3.19. 2 Vaiśvānara-vidyā or the doctrine of the Universal Soul taught to six Brāhmaṇas, Prācīnaśāla and the rest, by King Aśvapati, vide Chānd. 5.11–5.18. The story begins: Six great house-holders, Prācīnaśāla and the rest assembled and pondered: '"Who is our Soul? Who is Brahman?"' Unable to decide, they approached Uddālaka Āruṇi with a view to learning about the Vaiśvānara Ātman or the Universal Soul from him. The latter directed them to King Aśvapati. Aśvapati asked each of the six, '"Whom do you reverence as the Universal Soul?"' They successively answered: the heaven, the sun, the wind, the ether, water and the earth. Thereupon Aśvapati taught them that the Uni- versal Soul is not thus separate, i.e. either the heaven, or the sun, etc., but is the Universal Being, comprehending everything. Vide V.K. 1.2.25; 3.3.55. 3 Vide Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.14.

642 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 3. 31. ADH. 13.] rest as fire pass over to light, Scripture goes on to say in the text: "And those who in forest" (Bṛh 6 2.15) that those too who meditate with faith on the true Brahman, celebrated in another scriptural text: "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait 2 1), pass over to light. In this manner, truly, the path is attained by all those who possess Brahma-vidyā, as by those who possess the Pañcāgni-vidyā. Hence it is ascertained that the general subject-matter is set aside by the texts, designating such a journey through the path of light, which are of a greater force. Similarly, by Smṛti as well the journey of all worshippers of Brahman through this path alone is established. Hence it is established that the path beginning with light, which is indeed met with in all the vidyās, is (only) re-mentioned (in the Upakosala-vidyā) and so on. Here ends the section entitled "Non-restriction" (13). COMPARISON Śaṃkara He reads "sarvāsām" (feminine gender) instead of "sarveṣām" (masculine gender), and interprets the sūtra thus: "(There is) no restriction (with regard to the going through path of light, but it is valid) for all (the saguṇa-vidyās or meditations on the qualified Brah- man), (there is) non-contradiction on account of work and inference".¹ Thus, literally he interprets the sūtra like Nimbārka, but while he speaks here of saguṇa-vidyās only, which, according to him, do not directly lead to release, Nimbārka does not do so Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha They revert the order of this sūtra and the next thus:— Nimbārka and others Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha "Aniyamaḥ . . . ." (sūtra 31). "Yāvadhikāram . . . .". (sūtra 31). "Yāvadhikāram . . . ." (sūtra 32). "Aniyamaḥ . . ." (sūtra 32) 1 Ś.B. 3.3.31, p. 805.

[sū. 3. 3. 32. ADH. 14.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 643 Interpretation same, only Rāmānuja does not take sūtra 31 (sūtra 32 according to Nimbārka) as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, but includes it under the section entitled "The Passing Away" (section 12 according to Nimbārka). He, however, takes 32 (sūtra 31 according to Nimbārka) as forming a section by itself, like Nimbārka. Śrī- kaṇṭha takes each of these two sūtras as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, like Nimbārka. Baladeva This is sūtra 32 in his commentary He too begins a new adhikaraṇa here, but concerned with an entirely different topic. He reads "avirodhāt" instead of "avirodhaḥ" Thus : "(There is) no rule (that meditation, muttering prayers, singing the name of the Lord and the rest are to be performed conjointly always as a means to salvation, since any one of them may singly lead to salvation), since there is no contradiction of all (texts), on account of word and inference".¹ Adhikaraṇa 14. The section entitled "So long as the office lasts". (Sūtra 32) SŪTRA 32 "OF THOSE WHO ARE ENTRUSTED WITH (CERTAIN) OFFICE, THERE IS ABIDING SO LONG AS THE OFFICE LASTS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Of Vasiṣṭha and the rest, on the other hand, "there is abiding so long as the office lasts", owing to the influence of the works of which their office is the result. Vedānta-kaustubha (The author) is now refuting the following objection: The argument stated above, viz. that through the power of know- ledge there result the decay of all the karmas of a knower at the time of his separation from the body, and the (consequent) attainment (by him) ¹ G.B. 3.3.32, pp. 164-165, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 32. 614 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 14.] of a distinguished place through the path beginning with light, is not justifiable, since it is found that even great sages like Vasiṣṭha and the rest, (though) possessed of knowledge, were re-born and experienced pleasures and pains. The re-birth of Vasiṣṭha from a pitcher is well-known.¹ How he experienced grief is declared by Smṛti thus: "He devoured Vasiṣṭha's hundred sons, Śakti and his younger brothers, as an infuriated lion devours a small deer. On hearing that his sons had been killed by Viśvāmitra, Vasiṣṭha bore that grief as the great mountain bears the world. He, the best of the sages, planned to destroy himself, but never did the greatest among the wise think of destroying Kauśika (i.e. Viśvāmitra). The holy sage threw himself down from the peak of the Meru. From the mountain he fell down on its stones as on a heap of cotton. When he did not die from that fall, O Pāṇḍava, His Holiness entered a blazing-fire in a great forest. Then, though well-lit, the fire did not burn him. Seeing the sea, the great sage, afflicted with grief, fastened a heavy stone around his neck and dropped into the water. (But) the great sage was placed on the land by the current of the sea-waves. Then, depressed, he, went once more towards his own hermitage" (Mahā. 1. 6737–6744²). How he experienced happiness, too, is declared by Smṛti thus: "And he was followed to his hermitage by his daughter- in-law, named Adṛśyantī. Then by chance he heard from behind the sound of the study of the Veda, complete in meaning and ornamented with the six subsidiary parts. 'Who is following me?' he asked then. 'I, Adṛśyantī,' replied his daughter-in-law, Śakti's wife, highly virtuous, endowed with austerities and leading a religious life. 'Daughter, from whom is coming the sound of the study of the Veda with its subsidiary parts? Formerly, the Veda with its subsidiary parts was heard by me from Śakti alone.' 'In my womb has been born, O sage, the offspring of your son Śakti, who repeated the Vedas here for twelve years.' Told thus by her, the sage Vasiṣṭha, the highest, highly pleased, saying: 'I have an offspring', refrained, O Pārtha, from dying" (Mahā. 1.6755b–6760³). (Reply:) "Of those who are entrusted with (certain) office", i.e. of Vasiṣṭha and the rest, who owing to certain karmas, have been

¹ Vide Ṛg.V. 7.33.13, p. 26. ² Pp. 244–245, vol. 1. ³ P. 245, lines 14–19, vol. 1.