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

[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.

[sū. 3. 3 33. ADH. 15 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 645 entrusted with offices like composing the Veda and so on, "there is abiding so long as the office lasts", owing to the non-cessation of the works which have already begun to bear fruits and which brought about the office. Hence, in their case too, when through retributive enjoy- ment, the works which have begun to bear fruits and which brought about the office become exhausted; and when the office (thereby) comes to an end, there result the decay of all works at the time of their separation from the final body and the (subsequent) attain- ment (by them) of the path beginning with light. Here ends the section entitled 'So long as the office lasts' (14). Adhikaraṇa 15: The section entitled "The con- ception of the Imperishable". (Sūtras 33-34) SŪTRA 33 "BUT THERE IS THE COMPREHENSION (IN ALL BRAHMA-VIDYĀS) OF THE CONCEPTIONS OF THE IMPERISHABLE, ON ACCOUNT OF GENERALITY AND ON ACCOUNT OF BEING THAT, AS IN THE CASE OF WHAT BELONGS TO THE UPASAD, THAT HAS BEEN SAID." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There should be the inclusion, under all meditations on Brahman, of the conceptions of non-grossness and the rest, connected with the Imperishable, stated in the text: "That, verily, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short" (Bṛh. 3.8.8 ¹). Why? Because everywhere the Imperishable, viz. Brahman, the chief, is the same; and because those attributes of non- grossness and the rest form essential parts of an investigation into His real nature; just as in the Jāmadagnya-ahīna ² sacrifice, in which the Upasad ³ offerings are to consist of puraḍāś ⁴, the sacred formula read ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ² A sacrifice lasting four days, called 'Jāmadagnya' because offered by Jāmadagni. Vide Tait. Saṁ. 7.1.9. See V.K. 3.3.33. ³ Name of a ceremony lasting several days and forming part of the Jyoti- ṣṭoma sacrifice. ⁴ A puraḍāś is a sacrificial cake of ground rice, usually divided into pieces and offered in one or more cups (or kapāla).

[SŪ. 3. 3. 33. 646 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15 ] in the Sāma-veda, viz.: “May the fire promote the sacrifice” (Tāṇḍ. Br. 21.10.11 ¹) and so on, is recited in the low accent of the Yajur-veda. “That has been said,” viz: “If there be opposition between the subsidiary and the primary, there is connection of the Veda with the primary, because of the subserviency of that, (i.e of the subsidiary to the primary)”. (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.9.²) Vedānta-kaustubha By the statement (made above) that the knowers abide (in this world) until the completion of their offices, it is indicated that the departure of such men also from the universe, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, is under the control of the Highest Person alone, different from the universe. Now (the author) points out that the attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest of that very Highest Person,—the cause of the origin and the rest of the world, the controller of the sentient and the non- sentient, different in nature from the whole group of non-sentient objects which are seen to be possessed of grossness and from the group of sentient beings which are declared by Scripture to be atomic, and an ocean of natural, eternal and infinite mass of attri- butes,—are to be meditated on by the knower in all the meditations on Him. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, the answer given to Gārgī by Yājñavalkya is recorded thus: ‘ “That, verily, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short, non-long, not red, not fluid, without shadow, without darkness, without air, without space, unassociated, tasteless, odourless, without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind, without light, without breadth, without

¹ P. 625, vol. 2. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B. ² P. 280. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. The sense is that when the primary and the subsidiary belong to two different Vedas, the Vedic characteristic of the subsidiary is to be determined by the primary, because the subsidiary is subservient to the primary, i.e. because the performer takes up the performance of the subsidiary solely for the purpose of making the primary complete in all details. Vide Śab. B. on Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.9, pp. 280-281. Hence here the Sāma-veda mantras, instead of being recited in the loud accent of the Sāma-veda, are to be recited in the low accent of the Yajur-veda, since they form subordinate parts of a Yajur-vedic sacrifice, viz. Jāmadagnya-ahīna.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 33. ADH. 15.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 647 happiness ¹, without measure, without inside and without outside. It consumes nothing whatsoever ² Verily, O Gārgī, at the com- mand of this Imperishable the sun and the moon stand held apart’ ’ (Bṛh. 3.8.8-9 ³). In the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda too beginning: “Now, the higher is that whereby the Imperishable is apprehended” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.5), it is said: “That which is invisible, intangible, without family, without caste, without eye, without ear, without hands and feet” (Muṇḍ. 1 1 6 ⁴). Here the doubt is, whether the attributes, viz. non-grossness, non-atomicity, invisibility, intangibility and the rest, which belong to Brahman, denoted by the word ‘Imperishable’, which are mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the text of the followers of the Atharva- veda, and which establish the difference of Brahman from the sentient and the non-sentient,—are to be inserted in all the meditations on Brahman or not. On the suggestion, viz. that they are not to be inserted, there being no purpose for that,— (We reply.) There is a purpose. In those meditations on Brahman too, it is Brahman, different from the sentient and the non-sentient, that is the object to be attained by the attainers,—so says (the author): “But there is the comprehension of the conceptions of the Imperishable”. “The Imperishable” is Brahman. There should be the “comprehension”, i.e. inclusion, of the “conceptions” of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest also, connected with Him, in all the meditations on Brahman, in order that we may understand ¹ Correct quotation : “amukham” (=without mouth) and not “asukham”. Vide Bṛh. 3.3.8, p. 169. ² Omitted portion: “None whatsoever consumes it”. ³ Vide the dialogue between Gārgī and Yājñavalkya, Bṛh. 3.8. Gārgī put two questions to Yājñavalkya: First: “That which is above the sky, that which is beneath the earth, that which is between these two, sky and earth, that which people call the past, the present and the future,—across what is that woven, warp and woof ?” (Bṛh. 3.8.4). Answer: “That, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable”, etc. ⁴ Vide Muṇḍ. 1 1. Brahmā taught this knowledge of Brahman to his eldest son Atharva, who taught it to Aṅgir, who taught it to Bhāradvāja Satya- vāha, who taught it to Aṅgiras. Then, Śaunaka, a great householder approached Aṅgiras with the question: “Sir ! Through knowing which everything else becomes known ?” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.3). Thereupon Aṅgiras proceeded to teach him two kinds of knowledge, higher (or parā) and lower (or aparā). The lower so is the knowledge of the four Vedas with their subsidiary parts, the higher is the knowledge whereby the Imperishable is apprehended.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 33. 648 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15.] His real nature as different from the sentient and the non-sentient. That His essential attributes, like bliss and the rest, are to be so included has been stated under the aphorism: "Bliss and the rest belonging to the chief" (Br. Sū. 3.3.11). Similarly, in order that the illusory notion that His bliss is similar to other kinds of blisses may be set at naught,¹ it is proper that the attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest should be included everywhere. Why? "On account of generality and on account of being that", that is, because in all meditations on Brahman, the real nature of the object to be meditated on, which is different from the sentient and the non- sentient and is the object to be attained, remains the same; also because those attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest form essential parts of an investigation into the nature of the Chief, as they follow Him. An instance illustrating that the attributes (or the secondary matters) follow the chief (or the primary matter) is given in the phrase: "As in the case of what belongs to the Upasad". That is, just as in the Jāmadagnya-ahīna sacrifice, in which the upasad offerings are to consist of puradāś, enjoined in the text: "Jamadagni, desiring prosperity, sacrificed with the four-nightly rite . . . .² The sacrificial cakes become the upasad offerings" (Tait. Saṁ. 7.1.9 ³), the sacred formulæ read in the Sāma-veda, like "May the fire promote the sacrifice" (Tāṇḍ. Br. 7.1.9) and so on, are recited by the Adhvaryyu in the low accent of the Yajur-veda, as they follow the principal matter. "That has been said", i. e. said by Jaimini, viz. "If there be opposition between the subsidiary and the primary, because of the subserviency of that (viz. of the subsidiary to the primary)". (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.9.) ¹ That is, to know a thing is to know its peculiar attributes which distin- guish it from other objects. Now, bliss and the rest do not constitute the ex- clusive attributes of Brahman, since they are the attributes of the individual souls as well. Hence in order that the bliss and so on of Brahman may not be confused with the bliss and the rest of the individual soul, it is necessary to include in all meditations on Brahman the further attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest, which belong to Brahman exclusively, over and above the attributes of bliss and so on. ² Omitted portion: "He prospered therein and the two descendants of Jamadagni are not found to be grey-haired. He who knowing thus offers the four-nightly rite comes to have that prosperity". ³ P. 251, line 17, vol. 2.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 34. ADH. 15 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 649 COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation of "sāmānya-tad-bhāvābhyām" different, viz. "On account of the equality (i.e because all texts equally establish Brahman as such, i e. as different from the Universe) and on account of that object (viz Brahman, being the object of all texts)' 1 SŪTRA 34 "SO MUCH (I E ONLY THESE ATTRIBUTES) (ARE TO BE INCLUDED EVERYWHERE), ON ACCOUNT OF REFLECTION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Since Brahman, the best of all, is meditated on through (i.e. as possessed of) bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on, bliss and the rest are to be included everywhere Other attributes like having all works and the like, though following the Chief (viz. Brahman) are to be comprised (only) where mentioned. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. In accordance with the stated maxim 2, it follows that there is the inclusion everywhere of those attributes as well, which are stated in the scriptural text: "Having all works, having all odours, having all tastes" (Chānd. 3.14.2, 4), as they too follow the Chief—(the author) says: "So much", i.e. bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on 3, are included in all the meditations on Brahman. Why? "On account of reflec- tion"; that is, "the reflection" on Brahman, different from the 1 Ś.B. 3.3.33, p. 811; Bh. B. 3.3.33, p. 188. 2 Viz. that attributes or secondary matters follow their substratum or the primary matter. 3 Which differentiate such bliss, etc. from ordinary bliss, etc. of the indivi- dual souls.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 34. 650 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15.] sentient and the non-sentient, is preceded by the differentiation of Him from others by means of the group of attributes like bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on,—on account of such a reflection on Him, i.e. meditation on Him with thought directed toward Him. (The attributes like) having all works and so on, though following the chief, are suitable in those place alone where they are mentioned, there being no special purpose for their inclusion every- where. Hence it is established that 'there is the comprehension of the conceptions of the Imperishable' (Br Sū 3.3.33). Here ends the section entitled "The conception of the Imperishable". COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara Bhāskara reads "īṣat". They take this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the two passages in the Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad (Śvet. 4 6) and in the Kaṭha- upaniṣad (Kaṭha. 3.1) refer to the same vidyā. The answer is that they are the same "on account of so much (viz. the number two) being recorded". That is, in both the passages the Lord and the individual soul are designated as the objects to be known. As such, both constitute the same vidyā.¹ Baladeva Interpretation same, only the interpretation of the word "āmananāt" different, viz. "On account of scriptural declaration ². ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.34, pp. 814; Bh. B. 3.3.34, p. 188. ² G.B. 3.3.35.