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

[Sū. 3. 3. 38. 662 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 17.] Having designated the Highest Self by the term 'ether' in the passage: "Now, that which is within this city of Brahman is a small lotus-chamber, small is the ether within that. What is within that should be searched for" (Chānd 8.1 1), the Chandogas go on to men- tion His special characteristics by means of eight attributes, thus: "This soul is free from sins, without old age, without death, without grief, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves" ((Chānd. 8 1.5). Having stated: "He, verily, is the great, unborn self, who is this one consisting of knowledge among the vital-breaths, who lies in the ether within the heart" (Bṛh. 4.4 22), the Vājasaneyins too go on to mention His special characteristics by means of the attributes of being a controller and so on, thus: "The controller of all, the ruler of all" (Bṛh. 4.4.22). Here the doubt is, viz. whether the vidyās of the Chandogas and the Vājasaneyins are different, or whether they are identical. On the suggestion, viz In the one case, the object to be meditated on is the Highest Self, denoted by the term 'ether' and possessed of the attributes of freedom from sins and so on; while in the other case, the object to be meditated on is one who abides within a special kind of ether and is possessed of the attributes of being a controller and so on. This being so, owing to the difference of forms, there results difference of the objects to be known, and hence the vidyās differ,— We reply: The vidyās are identical, owing to the non-difference of forms. So says (the author): "Desire and the rest". "Desire and the rest," i.e. the group of attributes like having true desires and so on, mentioned in the Chāndogya text. "Free from sins" (Chānd. 8.1.5) and so on, is to be inserted "elsewhere", i.e. in the Vājasaneyaka. "And here," i.e. and in the Chāndogya, the group of attributes like being the controller and so on, mentioned in the Vājasaneyaka text, is to be inserted. This being so, the form is not different; that being so, there is identity of the objects to be meditated on and hence the vidyās are identical. (The author) states the reasons for this mutual insertion of attri- butes: "On account of abode and so on", i.e. on account of the non- difference, in both the cases, of the abode, viz. the heart; ¹ of the ¹ Vide Chānd. 8.1.1; Bṛh. 4 4.22. See the quotations above.

[sū. 3. 3. 38. ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 663 designation of Brahman, the object to be meditated on, as a bridge; ¹ and of the connection with the fruit, viz. the attainment of Brahman, mentioned in the passages "Having attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd 8 4 4), "He becomes the fearless Brahman" (Chānd 4.4.25) COMPARISON Śaṃkara This is sūtra 39 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikarana by itself. He begins by explaining the sūtra exactly like Nimbārka, viz. that there is identity of the vidyās here and hence the attributes are to be mutually combined. But in conclusion he adds that there is, however, a difference between the two passages, viz. that the Chāndogya text refers to the qualified Brahman, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka text to the highest Brahman.² Śrīkaṇṭha He reads: "Kāmādayas tatra tatra". Interpretation same, only while Nimbārka speaks of only two Upanisads, he speaks of three, viz. Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Māhā-nārāyaṇa (Mahānār. 10.7), and points out that all these three passages refer to the same vidyā.³ He takes it as forming an adhikarana by itself. Baladeva This is sūtra 40 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikarana here (two sūtras) concerned with Śrī, the eternal consort of the Lord. According to him, the words 'sā eva' are to be supplied here from the preceding sūtra. Hence the sūtra: "She (viz. the parā-śakti of the Lord) alone (is Śrī), (who creates all) objects of desire and so on else- where (i.e. in the material world) and here (i.e. in the city of the Lord or Saṃvyoma), (for the Lord) since (she is) all-pervading ("āya"),

¹ Vide Chānd. 8.4.1; Bṛh. 4.4.22. ² Ś.B. 3.3.38, p. 820, "Ayaṃ tu atra vidyate viśeṣaḥ, saguṇā hi Brahma- vidyā Chāndogye Upadiśyate, . . . Vājasaneyake tu nirguṇam eva paraṃ Brah- mopadiśyamānaṃ dṛśyate". ³ ŚK. 3.3.38, p. 350, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 39. 664 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 17.] spreading out (“tana”) (bliss and release for the devotees) and so on”.¹ SŪTRA 39 “ON ACCOUNT OF CARE, THERE IS NON-OMISSION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is no negation of the attributes of having true desires and so on, recorded “carefully”, since the negation: “There is no plurality here” (Bṛh. 4.4.19; Kaṭha 4 11 ²) refers to the things not having Brahman for their essence. Vedānta-kaustubha It may be objected: The statement, made above, that the group of attributes like ‘being the controller’ and so on, mentioned in the Vājasaneyaka, is to be inserted in the Chāndogya, is not justifiable. In accordance with the text under discussion, viz. “It is to be perceived by the mind alone. There is no plurality here, He gets death after death who perceives here apparent plurality. It is to be looked upon as a unity alone,—this unknowable being” (Bṛh. 4.4.19-20), as well as in accordance with the subsequent text: “This soul is not this, not this” (Bṛh. 4.4.22), we arrive at the conclusion that the Highest is free from distinctions. Hence it is known that like grossness, atomicity and so on, the group of attributes like ‘being the controller’ and so on, is something to be negated. Hence, it should be known that in the Chāndogya too, the group of attributes like having true desires and so on, is something to be negated. This being so, such an absence of attributes is to be included in all the meditations subserving final release.—To this (the author) says: There is “non-omission”, i.e. non-denial, of the attributes of the Highest Brahman, like ‘having true desires’ and so on and ‘being the controller’ and so on, which are incapable of being denied and are taught “carefully” as something new in the texts: “What is within that should be searched for” (Chānd. 8.1.1), “This soul is free from sins, without old age, without death, without grief, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves” ¹ G.B. 3.3.40, pp. 182–184, Chap. 3. ² R.

[sū. 3. 3. 39. ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 665 (Chānd. 8.1.5), “Those who go, having found here the soul and the true desires, come to have free movement in all the worlds” (Chānd. 8 1.6), “The controller of all, the ruler of all” (Bṛh. 4.4 22; 5.6.1), “He is the Lord of all, he is the ruler of all beings, he is the protector of all beings” (Bṛh. 4.4 22), “He is the separating dam for keeping these worlds apart” (Bṛh. 4.4.22) and so on. On the contrary, they are to be inserted, there being no authority for their denial. The scriptural text: “There is no plurality here” (Bṛh. 4.4.19; Kaṭha 4.11) states, on the other hand, that in Brahman, who is the cause of the world, who is different and non-different from the sentient and the non-sentient and who has the stated marks, there is no ‘plurality’, i.e. there are no objects which, not having their existence and activity dependent on Him are dependent on one another only Since everything has Brahman for its essence, ‘he who perceives here apparent plurality’, not having Brahman for his essence, ‘gets death after death’. He is to be ‘looked upon as a unity alone’, since all things have Brahman for their essence, and since there is nothing which does not have Brahman for its essence. This is what the text designates, but it does not prove that the real attributes of Brahman are to be denied. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 40 in Śaṁkara’s commentary. They begin a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. whether the Prāṇāgni-hotra or the offering of the first food to the vital-breaths, enjoined in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 5.19.1), is to be omitted when eating itself is omitted or not. This sūtra states the prima facie view, viz. that there is no omission of the offering to the vital-breath even when there is the omission of eating, but it has to be performed by means of water in place of food, since the Jābāla version of the same vidyā (viz. Vaiśvānara-vidyā) shows great respect for this ceremony of Prāṇāgni-hotra. Śrīkaṇṭha He takes it to be an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets it in a sectarian way. The question is whether the form of the Lord as having a blue neck (Nīla-kaṇṭha), having Umā by His side and having attributes like true desires and so on is something to be negated

666 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 3. 40. ADH. 17.] or not. The prima facie view is that having parts like a blue neck and so on involves increase and decrease and hence it is not possible on the part of Brahman, the immutable. Therefore, the attributes of having a blue neck, having Umā by the side and so on, are not His real attributes, but are simply imagined for the sake of meditation and are, as such, subject to negation sometime or other. The answer is: "There is no negation (of the attributes having a blue neck, three eyes, Umā by the side and so on), since (they are designated in Scripture) with (great) care". That is, the Lord (viz. Śiva) is to be meditated on always as having a blue neck and so on and as accompanied by Umā,—which are His real attributes—for such a meditation alone leads to release.¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 41 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic of Śrī, viz. her identity with the parā-śakti of the Lord. The problem is that if Śrī be identical with the parā-śakti of the Lord, then she must be identical with the Lord Himself, since the parā-śakti of the Lord is identical with Him. In that case, however, she cannot be devoted to the Lord, since none can be devoted to one's own self. The answer is: "On account of (her great) regard (for the Lord), there is non-cessation (of her devotion for Him)". That is, Śrī, though one with the Lord, cannot but love and be devoted to Him who is her very existence, just as the branch cannot but love the tree, or the ray the moon.² SŪTRA 40 "WHEN ONE HAS APPROACHED (THE LORD, HE COMES TO HAVE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT), FOR THIS REASON, ON ACCOUNT OF STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha When one has attained Brahman by means of meditating on Him who has the stated marks, one comes to have freedom of movement in 1 ŚK. B. 3.3.39, pp. 354-355, Parts 10 and 11. 2 G.B. 3.3.41, p. 185, Chap. 3. "Satyapya bhede vicitra-guṇaratnākarat- vena sva-mūlatvena ca śriyaḥ parasmin ādarāt tad bhakter lopaḥ. Na khalu- vṛkṣam anādriyamāṇā śākhāsti, na candram tatprabhā."

[SŪ. 3 3 40. ADH. 17.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 667 all the worlds. If it be objected: How can one have freedom of movement everywhere unless one first aspires to attain those particular worlds and then practises the means leading to them?—We reply: "For this reason", i.e. on account of this very reason of attaining (the Lord), in accordance with the statement: "Having attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd. 8.3.4¹), "He becomes a self-ruler" (Chānd. 7.2 2²), "He comes to have freedom of movement in all the worlds" (Chānd. 7.25.2³). Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. In the texts: "Now, those who depart having the self here and these true desires come to have freedom of movement in all the worlds. If he comes to desire the world of fathers" (Chānd. 8 2.1) and so on, it is declared that even by those who desire salvation, the worlds common to those who desire enjoyment are attained. This being so, what difference is there between devotion to works and devotion to knowledge?—(the author) says: "When one has approached," i.e. when the knower, freed from all connection with matter in its causal and effected states, has come to attain the nature of Brahman, he attains freedom of movement in all the worlds. Why? "For this reason" alone, i e. on account of the very reason of attaining the nature of Brahman. The sense is this: Just as a man, desirous of universal sovereignty, having given up the objects of enjoyment, common to all men, as well as the means thereto, attains universal sovereignty through the means thereto, and afterwards for just that reason, comes to have freedom of movement among the objects of enjoyment that are common to all men, as well among those that are difficult to be attained by them,—though not desired by him,—so the knower, having given up all enjoyments, here or hereafter, as well as the means thereto, attains the nature of the Lord through the hearing, thinking, meditation, worship and so on of Him; and for that very reason of attaining His nature, comes to have freedom of movement everywhere. Whence is this known? To this (the author) replies. "From statement to that effect", i.e. from the statement, every- where, of a knower's having freedom of movement, such as

¹ R, ŚK. ² R. ³ Op. cit. 13

[SŪ. 3. 3. 40. 668 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 17.] "Having attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his own form" (Chānd. 8.3.4, 8.12.3), "He is the excellent person. He roams about there laughing, playing, enjoying with women, or with carriages, or with relatives, not remembering the appendage of this body" (Chānd. 8.12.3), "He becomes a self-ruler. He comes to have freedom of movement in all the worlds" (Chānd. 7.25.2), "As to the perfection of means to the four ends of men,—without it a man, whose refuge is Nārāyaṇa, attains them", and so on. Thus, there is a great difference between devotion to works and devotion to knowledge. Hence it is established that through the mutual insertion of the attributes of having true desires and so on and of being the controller and the rest, the Brahma-vidyās of the Chāndogas and of the Vājasaneyins are the very same. Here ends the section entitled "Desire" (17). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 41 in Śaṁkara's commentary. Here they answer the prima facie view stated in the previous sūtra, thus: "When (eating is actually) taking place, (then alone an offering to the vital- breaths is to be made) from that (i.e. from the first food), on account of statement to the effect". ¹ Śrīkaṇṭha He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpreta- tion different. The question is whether the freed attain the very nature of Brahman, as possessed of infinite auspicious attributes, and so on, or something else. The prima facie view is that Brahman is declared to be free from distinctions or nirviśeṣa. Hence the freed souls attain this distinctionless form of Brahman. The answer is: "When one has approached (Brahman, one attains the nature of Brahman as possessed of all auspicious attributes), for that reason (i.e. because the freed soul attains its own form), (and) because of texts to that effect (i.e. that the freed become similar to the Lord)". ² ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.41, pp. 822–824; Bh. B. 3.3.40 (written as 3 3 41), pp. 191-192. ² ŚK. B. 3.3.40, pp. 356-357, Parts 10 and 11. 13B

[SŪ. 3. 3. 41. ADH. 18.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 669 Baladeva This is sūtra 42 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic of the identity of Śrī with the parā-śakti of the Lord and hence with the Lord Himself. The contention is that if Śrī be identical with the Lord, then no erotic sentiment is possible between them, since any such sentiment is possible only if there be a difference between the lover and the beloved. The answer is : “(Śrī being the highest of the females and the Lord being the best of the males, an erotic sentiment naturally arises between them) when (they) have approached (each other), hence (such a sentiment is possible on the part of the Lord), on account of statement to that effect”. ¹ Adhikaraṇa 18: The section entitled “Non- restriction with regard to the specifying of that”. (Sūtra 41²) SŪTRA 41 “(THERE IS) NON-RESTRICTION WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIFYING OF THAT, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT BEING SEEN, FOR THE FRUIT (VIZ.) NON-OBSTRUCTION IS ‘DIFFERENT’.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is “non-restriction” (i.e. no fixed rule) that the meditations that are founded on the subordinate parts of sacrificial acts and are mentioned in texts like: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1³) and so on (are to be included) in those acts. Why? Because in the scriptural text: “Both perform with it, he who knows this thus and he who does not know thus” (Chānd. 1.1.10⁴), such a non-restriction is found. As we learn from Scripture that even a non-worshipper is a performer of sacrificial works through the praṇava, a subsidiary part of sacrificial works, so it is ascertained that there is no restriction with regard to the act of meditation. And hence that the fruit of meditation is “different” from the fruit of work is known from the passage: “What only one does with ¹ G.B. 3.3.42, p. 186, Chap. 3. ² This topic is resumed in Br. Sū. 3.3.59–64. ³ Ś, R, Bh. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK.

670 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 41. ADH. 18 ] knowledge, with faith, with the mystic doctrine,—that only becomes more potent" (Chānd 1.1.10 ¹). Vedānta-kaustubha It has been shown at the end of the previous section that there is a great difference between meditation and work, since the former is the cause of a knower's (attaining) freedom of movement and a supreme place. Now (the author) is showing the superiority of meditation to work, on the ground of the superiority of the fruit of the meditations, founded on the subsidiary parts of work, over that of mere works (like sacrifices, etc ) though performed together with all their subsidiary parts. Now, there are certain meditations which are founded on the udgītha and the rest, the subsidiary parts of sacrificial works, such as · "Let one meditate on the syllable 'Om' as the udgītha" (Chānd. 1 1.1) and so on. Here the doubt is as to whether they are to be inserted regularly in the sacrificial acts, like the quality of being made of parṇa-wood ²; or not regularly, like the milking-vessel With regard to this, the prima facie view is as follows: As the designation about the meditation on the udgītha, viz.: "Whatever one does with knowledge, with faith, with the mystic doctrine, that becomes more potent" (Chānd. 1.1.10), does not mention any separate result, —just as the hearing of non-sinful verses connected with the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood, mentioned in the passage · "He whose sacrificial ladle is made of the prana-wood does not hear sinful verses" (Tait. Saṃ. 3 5.7 ³) (is not a separate or special fruit),—so the meditations on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts are to be inserted regularly (in those acts) as their subsidiary parts, just as the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood (is always connected with sacrificial acts) through the sacrificial ladle.⁴

¹ Ś, Bh, ŚK. Vide Br. Sū. 4.1.18. ² A beautiful sacred tree of the wood of which particular sacrificial vessels are made. ³ P. 311, lines 23-24, vol. 1. ⁴ The problem here is as to whether the meditations, enjoined in the Upa- niṣads, on certain subsidiary parts of sacrifices, such as, on the udgītha and so on, are necessarily connected with those sacrifices, i.e. are to be undertaken whenever those sacrifices are undertaken ; or whether they may be undertaken optionally in accordance with the will of the sacrificer. In the former case, such meditations

[SŪ. 3. 3. 41. ADH. 18.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 671 With regard to it, we reply "Non-restriction with regard to the specifying of that", and so on. The word "specifying" ("nirdhāraṇa) means complete retention by the mind ¹, i e meditation. There is "non-restriction" with regard to the meditation "of that", i.e. of the meditations founded on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, such as the udgītha-meditation and the like. That is, the meditations on the udgītha and the rest are not to be inserted regularly in sacrifices as their subsidiary parts Why? "On account of that being seen," i e. because such a non-restriction is found in Scripture Thus, in the scriptural text: "Both perform with this, he who knows ² this thus and he who does not know thus" (Chānd. 1.1 10), even a non- knower being stated to be an agent, it is ascertained that there is no fixed rule that the meditations founded on the udgītha and the rest would stand to the sacrifices in the same relation as the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood (parṇamayītva) does. The quality of being made of the parṇa-wood is permanently connected with sacrifices through the sacrificial ladle made of the parṇa-wood. Similarly, these meditations on the udgītha and the rest would, on this view, be permanently connected with the sacrifices through the udgītha and the rest. That is, in accordance with the dictum laid down in Pū. Mī. Sū. 3 6.1-2 (vide Śab. B. on the same, pp. 366–368), a sacrificial ladle made of the parṇa-wood is an essential ingredient of a sacrifice and is to be included in it whenever it is performed Similarly, on the first view. the meditations on the udgītha and so on are to be performed whenever the main sacrifices are performed. In the latter case, however, such meditations would stand to the sacrifices in the same relation as the milking-vessel does. That is, in accordance with the dictum laid down in Pū. Mī. Sū 4.1.2 (vide Śab B on the same, p. 436), the milking-vessel (go-dohana) is used in certain sacrifices, viz. in the Daśa- pūrṇa-māsa, not universally, but only occasionally, i.e. only if the sacrificer desires for a special end, viz. cattle. Similarly, on the second view, the medita- tions on the udgītha and the rest are not obligatory to the main sacrifices, but only optional. The prima facie view is that the meditations on the udgītha and the rest serve no special purpose, as the using of the milking-vessel, e.g. does. They simply secure the greater potency of the sacrifices which is the general fruit of all other connected acts, just as having one's sacrificial ladle made of the parṇa- wood secures no special result. Hence it cannot be said those meditations on the udgītha and the like are to be undertaken at will for the sake of securing a special result. Therefore, they are to be undertaken always with the sacrifices. ¹ Niravaśeṣatayā dhāraṇam-nirdhāraṇam. ² Here the word "veda" (=knows) may be translated in conformity with the context, as "meditates", the text meaning that one may perform a sacrifice either with meditating on the Om, or not meditating on it.

672 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA. [SŪ. 3. 3 41. ADH. 18 ] are to be inserted regularly in sacrificial acts as their subordinate parts. Further, as the fruit of the injunction of meditation is different from that of sacrificial acts, there is no fixed rule with regard to the meditations on that,—so says (the author): "For different", i e. because "the fruit" of the injunction of meditation, consisting in "non-obstruction", is declared by Scripture to be "different" from the fruit of sacrificial works. The sense is that the fruit of one work is obstructed by the fruit of another stronger work; the fruit of the injunction of meditation is the opposite of that. In accordance with the text: "Both perform with it, he who knows this thus and he who does not know thus Diverse, however, are knowledge and non-knowledge What only one does with knowledge, with faith, with the mystic doctrine, that only becomes more potent" (Chānd 1 1.10), 'with it', i.e. with the Om-kara, forsooth, both perform sacrificial acts. Though 'he who knows' 'this', i e the syllable, Om, 'thus', i e. as possessed of the attributes of being the finest essence and so on, and 'he who does not know', are both equal in point of being agents, yet there is a difference in the result on account of knowledge and non-knowledge,—this is what the text designates. Here 'know- ledge' is 'diverse', i e. different from 'non-knowledge' That work which one does 'with knowledge', 'with faith', 'with the mystic doctrine', i.e. with the meditation on the Mystic Deity, 'becomes more potent',—this is the sense. Hence, it is established that just as the text: "For one desiring cattle he should fetch water in a milking- vessel" establishes a (special) fruit of the (use of) the milking-vessel, having the fetching of water as its abode ¹,—here as the text can very well be so interpreted, the milking-vessel is not a subordinate part of sacrificial acts,—so the meditations, founded on the subsidiary elements of sacrificial acts are to be included in those acts optionally. Here ends the section entitled "Non-restriction with regard to the specifying of that" (18). 1 That is, the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood cannot have a special result of its own, since it is only a quality and not an act and must, as such, abide in a substratum to be connected with any result. But the milking- vessel may have a special fruit, since it has an act, viz. the fetching of water, as its abode. Vide Ś.B. 3.3.42, p. 826.

[SŪ 3. 3. 42. ADH. 19.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 673 COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 43 in his commentary. He too takes it to be an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned, however, with an entirely different topic The question is as to whether the Lord is to be meditated on as Kṛṣṇa alone. The answer is : "(There is) no restriction with regard to the specifying of that (viz. the Lord), (i.e. there is no fixed rule that the Lord is to be worshipped as Kṛṣṇa alone), on account of that being found (in Scripture), for there is a soparate fruit, (viz.) non- obstruction (of the worship of Kṛṣṇa)". That is, the worship of Kṛṣṇa is the unobstructed or direct means to salvation, while the worship of other deities is the indirect means ¹ Adhikaraṇa 19. The section entitled "Offer- ing". (Sūtra 42) SŪTRA 42 “SIMPLY AS IN THE CASE OF OFFERING, THAT HAS BEEN SAID.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha During the meditations on the attributes also, the meditation on the dahara (or the small), the substratum of the attributes, is to be repeated as qualified by those attributes respectively, "as in the case of the offering" of the sacrificial cake ², designated in the text: "Let one offer the sacrificial cake on eleven potsherds to Indra, the king, to Indra, the over-lord, to Indra, the self-ruler" (Tait. Saṃ. 2.3.6 ³). "That has been said," viz. "Diverse, forsooth, are the divinities, owing to different conceptions".⁴ Vedānta-kaustubha It has been said above that the meditations founded on the sub- sidiary parts of sacrificial acts are not to be inserted in those acts ¹ G.B. 3.3.43, pp. 189-190, Chap. 3. ² Puroḍāś. ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk. P. 174, lines 13-14, vol. 1. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

674 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 42. ADH. 19 ] regularly Now, apprehending the objection, viz. that just as the meditations on the subsidiary parts are independent of the whole, so the meditations on the attributes are independent of the meditation on the substratum of attributes—it is said. Under the Dahara-vidyā 1, after having first stated the small ether, i.e. the soul, the substratum of the attributes, as the object to be meditated on thus: “Now, those who depart having known the self here” (Chānd. 8 1 6), the text goes on to set forth separately once more the meditations on the attributes of being free from sins and the rest too thus “And these true desires” (Chānd. 8.1.6). Here the doubt is as to whether while meditating on an attribute, the small ether, the substratum of the attributes, too is to be meditated on as possessed of that particular attribute, or not On the sugges- tion: As the small ether can very well be meditated on at all times as qualified by the attributes of being free from sins and so on, during the meditation on the attributes, the meditation on Him as qualified by those particular attributes is not to be repeated We reply. “As in the case of offering”, the meditation on the small ether, the substratum of attributes, as qualified by those parti- cular attributes, is to be repeated with the meditations on those attributes themselves. The sense is this. Although those attributes like freedom from sins and so on have only one substratum, viz. the small ether, yet in accordance with the text: “Free from sins, without- old age” (Chānd. 8.1.5) and so on, which intends to designate its (different) forms as qualified by those particular attributes, it is to be meditated on as diverse. Just as in the case of the sacrifice comprising three sacrificial cakes, laid down in the text. “Let one offer the sacri- ficial cake on eleven potsherds to Indra, the king, to Indra, the over-lord, to Indra, the self-ruler” (Tait. Saṃ. 2.3.6 2), although the same Indra is qualified by the attributes of kingship and the rest, yet as the attributes of kingship, over-lordship and self-rulership are different from one another, the god himself is taken to have different forms as qualified by each particular attribute, and as such the “offerings” of the sacrificial cakes are repeated,—so is the case 1 Vide Chānd. 8.1 ff. See V.K. 3.3.1, for further explanation. 2 The text continues to designate these three epithets thus “Indra, the king is this (earth); Indra, the over-lord, is this (atmosphere); Indra, the self- ruler is the yonder (heaven)—. There are three cakes, these worlds are three”.

[sū. 3. 3. 42 ADH. 19 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 675 here. “That has been said” in the section treating of the divinities : “Diverse, forsooth, are the divinities owing to different conceptions”. Hence it is established that during the meditation on an attribute, the meditation on the small ether in that particular form, qualified by that particular attribute, is to be repeated Here ends the section entitled “Offering” (19). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 42 in Śaṁkara’s commentary Śaṁkara and Bhās- kara too take it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, though concerned with an entirely different topic. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka (Bṛh. 1 5 21), the vital-breath is said to be the best among the organs of the body, and the air to be the best among the gods. Similarly, in the Chān- dogya (Chānd. 4.3.1), the air is said to be the general absorber of the gods, and (Chānd. 4.3.3) the vital-breath is said to be the general absorber of the organs of the body. Here the question is as to whether the air and the vital-breath are to be conceived as separate or not. The prima facie view is that they are not to be conceived as separate, since they do not differ in their true nature. But the real view is that although they are fundamentally one, yet they are to be meditated on separately, since the texts teach them separately. Hence the vidyās here are not the same, but there are two separate vidyās. The parallel instance cited from the Taittirīya-saṁhitā and the maxim are the same as those cited by Nimbārka. Thus the sūtra : “As in the case of offering (the air and the vital-breath are to be conceived separately), that has been said”.¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 44 in his commentary. He too takes it as an adhi- karaṇa by itself, but concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the grace of the spiritual preceptor. Hence the sūtra: “Like the giving (of knowledge by the preceptor) alone that has been said”. That is, salvation depends upon the extent the preceptor is pleased ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.43, pp. 827–830; Bh. B. 3.3.42 (written as 3.3.43), p. 192.

[sū. 3 3. 43 676 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 20.] to impart knowledge to the devotee. Mere study of the Veda is not enough to ensure the attainment of Brahman, but the grace of the preceptor is necessary too 1 Adhikarana 20: The section entitled "The majority of indicatory marks". (Sūtras 43- 50) SŪTRA 43 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE MAJORITY OF INDICATORY MARKS, FOR THAT (VIZ INDICATORY MARK) IS STRONGER, THIS ALSO (HAS BEEN EXPLAINED)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The fires, piled up by the mind, piled up by speech, piled up by the vital-breath, piled up by the eye, piled up by the ear, piled up by action, piled up by the fire, and so on,2 are simply the subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation 3, "on account of the majority of the indicatory marks", such as: "Whatever these conceive with their mind that alone is their composition" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3 4), "All beings at all times pile up those (fires) for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12 5) and so on; "for" an indi- catory mark is "stronger" than the context. "This also" has been said in the section treating of what is supplementary to sacrifices· "If there be combination of direct association, indicatory mark, syntactical connection, context, place and name, then each succeeding one is weaker (than each preceding one), on account of its remoteness from the meaning" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.3.14 6). 1 G.B 3.3.44, p. 192, Chap. 3. 2 Vide Śat. Br. 10.5.3 (whole), pp. 796–798 3 I.e. these fires do not constitute parts of real sacrifices, and are not actually lighted during the performance of sacrifices, but are simply parts of meditation, i.e. mentally imagined fires. 4 P. 796, lines 7-8. This shows that the fires are composed by mind only, i.e. not actual fires. 5 P. 798, lines 14-15. Ś, Bh. 6 P. 284, vol. 1. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[sū. 3. 3. 43. ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 677 Vedānta-kaustubha Now (the author) points out that the fires too, that are going to be designated now, are not to be taken as subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, just as the meditations founded on the subsidiary elements of sacrificial acts are not to be taken as such. Having begun: "Verily, in the beginning, this was not existent, not even non-existent" (Śat. Br. 10 5 3, 1 1), having described the appearance of the mind, and having referred to the mind, by pointing out that that mind saw the fires belonging to itself 2, thus: "It saw the thirty-six thousand fires, the suns, belonging to itself, made of the mind, piled up by the mind. By the mind alone they were placed, by the mind they were piled up, by the mind the cups were taken in them, by the mind they praised, by the mind they recited. Whatever work is done in a sacrifice" (Śat. Br. 10 5 3, 3 3) and so on, the Vāja- saneyins, thus, record imaginary fires, piled up by the mind and so on, viz piled up by speech, piled up by the eye, piled up by action, piled up by fire,4 and so on, in the "Mystery of Fire".5 The life of a person lasts a hundred years. It consists of thirty-six thousand days and nights. In the course of a single day and night, many mental modes arise, and they are taken to be one because they have arisen in the course of the same day and night. Thus, there are thirty-six thousand mental modes in the course of thirty-six thousand days and nights, and they are demonstrated as the bricks which are subsidiary parts of sacrifices, and as elemental fires, by the text: "Thirty-six thousands" (Śat Br. 10 5.3, 1) and so on. Among these, those which are 'piled up', i.e. built, by the mind are the 'mind-piled'. Similarly, the meaning of the texts 'breath- piled' and so on are to be understood as the case may be. Here the doubt is as to whether these fires, piled up by the mind and so on are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in actual action, they being mentioned in a section concerned with sacrificial acts; or whether they are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting only in meditation. 1 P. 796, line 1. 2 Quotation mark wrong (in the text). 3 P. 796, lines 4-6. 4 Quotation mark wrong (in the text). 5 The name of the tenth book of the Śat. Br.

678 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ 3. 3. 43. ADH 20 ] First, (the author) begins with the correct conclusion, thus: "On account of the majority of indicatory marks". They are sub- sidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation only Why? "On account of the majority of indicatory marks," i e on account of the majority or numerosity of the indicatory marks, such as "What- ever these conceive with the mind alone that alone is their com- position" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3), "All beings at all times pile up those (fires) for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12) and so on. "For that," i.e. for an indicatory mark, is "stronger" than the context. "That also," i e the fact of its being of a greater force, is stated in the Karma-Kāṇḍa thus. "If there be combination of direct assertion, indicatory mark, syntactical connection, context, place and name, then each succeeding one is weaker (than each preceding one), on account of its remoteness from the meaning" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3 3 14). COMPARISON Rāmānuja He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikarana by itself, concerned with an entirely different topic. The question is as to whether the eleventh section of the Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad,—con- stituting the same vidyā as the vidyā, viz. the Dahara-vidyā, men- tioned in the tenth section—establishes only the object to be meditated on in that vidyā, or an object to be meditated on in all Brahma- vidyās. The prima facie view is that this section, in accordance with the context, establishes the object which is to be meditated on in the Dahara-vidyā only. The answer is. "(It establishes an object to be meditated in all Brahma-vidyās), on account of the majority of indicatory marks, (i.e. because there are many specific indications that Nārāyaṇa, designated in this section, is none but the object to be meditated on in all Brahma-vidyās), for that (viz. mark) is stronger (than the context), that too (has been stated in the Pūrva-mīmāṃsā)".¹ Śrīkaṇṭha He too takes this sūtra as forming an adhikarana by itself, con- cerned with a topic similar to that of Rāmānuja, only referring to a different passage, designating Rudra instead of Nārāyaṇa. Thus, ¹ Śrī. B. 3.3.43, pp. 325-326, Part 2.

[sū. 3. 3. 44. ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 679 the question is as to whether the Supreme Brahman or Rudra, accom- panied by Umā, mentioned in the thirteenth section of the Mahā- nārāyaṇa-upaniṣad, is the object to be meditated on in all the parā- vidyās, or only in that particular vidyā of that section. The prima facie view is that in accordance with the context, such a Supreme Brahman is to be meditated on in that particular vidyā alone. The answer is the same as that given by Rāmānuja, viz.: "(Such a Brahman is to be meditated on in all the parā-vidyās on account of the majority of indicatory marks—" ¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 45 in his commentary. He too takes this sūtra to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an altogether different topic, viz. the grace of the spiritual teacher. Hence the sūtra: "On account of the majority of indicatory marks, (viz. scrip- tural texts), that (i.e. the grace of the teacher), is stronger (than any other element in bringing about final emancipation), (but) that also (viz. exertion on one's own part, viz. study, meditation and so on,) (must be continued)".² PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 44-45) SŪTRA 44 "(THE FIRES BUILT UP BY THE MIND AND THE REST) MAY BE AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF THE PRECEDING FIRE BUILT UP BY BRICKS) ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONTEXT, (THEY ARE) ACTION, AS IN THE CASE OF THE MENTAL (VESSEL)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Now the prima facie view: This "may be an alternative form" of that same "preceding" (fire) consisting in action enjoined in the text: "With bricks he piles up the fire" ³. Since the indicatory mark here is contained in the descriptive portion, the stated fires are indeed of the form of action, as in the case of: "He takes the mental vessel".⁴ ¹ Śk. B 3.3.43, pp 362 ff., Parts 10 and 11. ² G.B. 3.3.45, p 193, Chap. 3. ³ Bh. ⁴ Op. cit.

[SŪ 3. 3. 44. 680 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 20.] Vedānta-kaustubha Now (the author) states the prima facie view This “may be” “an alternative form”, i.e. a mode, of the same “preceding fire”, enjoined in the passage: “With bricks he piles up the fire”. Why? “On account of the context,” i.e. because pre- viously in the passage “The non-existent, verily, was thus in the beginning” (Śat Br 6.1.1, 1 ¹), the fire, piled up by bricks, is men- tioned. If it be argued that it has been said that context is weaker than indicatory mark,—(we reply.) no, since the stated indicatory marks, being contained in the descriptive portion and as such concerned with the glorification of the mentioned imaginary fires, form a coherent whole with the injunction, and are hence not true in their own literal sense. Hence the fact that they are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation is set aside by the context. Therefore these fires too, which have the form of meditation, are really of the form of action, “as in the case of the mental (vessel)” That is, just as the offering of the mental vessel on the tenth day of the twelve-days’ sacrifice, mentioned in the passage “With this (earth) as the jug, with the sea as the juice, he takes the mental cup, offered to Prajāpati, for you” ², though of the form of meditation, is yet of the form of action because of being the subsidiary part of a sacrifice consisting in action, so is the case here. Baladeva This is sūtra 46 in his commentary He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. meditation on the self as identical with the Lord (So'ham). Hence the sūtra: “(The meditation on the self as identical with the Lord) may be an optional form of the former (viz. devotion) on account of 1 P. 499, line 1. 2 A similar passage is found in Āp. Ś.S. 21.10.2. The sense is that on the tenth day of the Soma sacrifice, lasting twelve days, a cup is offered mentally to Prajāpati, the earth being imagined to be the cup and the sea the soma-juice. Now, all operations connected with this cup are mental, yet the offering of the cup is taken to be a real, and not an imaginary action, since it is connected with a real sacrifice. In the same way, the fires built up by the mind and so on, though mental, are to be taken as parts of real sacrifices, so says the prima facie objector. Vide Ś.B. 3.3.46, pp. 832-833

[sū. 3. 3 45. ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 681 the context (i e the Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī), like (the physical) acts (of offerings and so on), (and) the mental (acts of meditation and so on)". That is, expressions like 'I am he', and so on, uttered by God- intoxicated devotees in a state of extreme ecstasy, are not to be understood literally as implying an identity between the Lord and His devotee, because they are only particular moods of meditation, just as offerings and the like are.¹ PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded) SŪTRA 45 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFERENCE" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: "Of these, each is as great as the former" (Śat. Br. 10.3.3, 11 ²), the power of the former fire is transferred to them. Hence they are indeed of the form of action. Vedānta-kaustubha In the text: "There are thirty-six thousand fires, the suns. Of these, each is as great as the former" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3.11), the power of the previous fire, piled up by bricks, is transferred to them. On account of such a transference as well, the fires piled up by the mind and the rest are indeed of the form of action. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 47 in his commentary. Here he concludes the section about the 'I am he'—meditation. Hence the sūtra: "Also on account of analogy". That is, in the Gopāla-uttara-tāpanī-upaniṣad, the Lord is compared to a loving father, and the devotee to His son. This shows that the individual soul is not identical with the Lord. Hence sentiments like 'I am he' and so on are but modes of devotion, and do not indicate any identity between the two.³

¹ G.B. 3.3.46, p. 195, Chap. 3 3. "Prakāra-viśeṣeva, nārthāntaram." ² P. 798, lines 13-14. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ³ G.B. 3.3.47, pp. 199-200, Chap. 3.