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

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.

682 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 3. 46. ADH. 20.] CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 46–50) SŪTRA 46 "BUT (THEY ARE) MEDITATION ALONE, ON ACCOUNT OF SPECI- FICATION AND ON ACCOUNT OF OBSERVATION (I.E. SCRIPTURAL TEXT)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The correct conclusion is that they are of the natue of medita- tion alone Why? "On account of the specification," viz. · "For they are piled up by knowledge alone" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12 ¹); and also because in that very treatise, viz in the text: "By the mind 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 chanted. Whatever work is done in a sacrifice" (Śat. Br. 10.5 3, 3²) and so on, a sacrifice consisting of meditation is designated—the whole, of which they (viz. the fires) are subsidiary parts Vedānta-kaustubha (The author) states the correct conclusion. The word "but" is meant for disposing of the prima facie view. The word "only" implies emphasis. The fires piled up by the mind and so on cannot be of the form of action, but are "meditation alone," i.e. are of the nature of meditation alone, or are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Why? "On account of specifica- tion and on account of observation," i e because of the specification, viz.. "For they are piled up by knowledge alone" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12), and because in the text. "By mind alone they are placed, by mind they are piled up, by mind the cups are taken in them, by mind they praised, by mind they chanted. Whatever work is done in a sacrifice, whatever sacrificial work there is, that, consisting of mind alone, was performed by mind alone, in these, consisting of mind, piled up by mind" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3), a sacrifice consisting in meditation alone is designated—the whole, of which they are subsidiary parts ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ P. 798, lines 14-15. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ² P. 796, lines 5-6. R, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 47. ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 683 COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara They break the sūtra into two separate sūtras thus: "Vidyaiva .... nirdhāraṇāt" and "Darśanāc ca". Interpretation same. Baladeva Like Śaṃkara, he too breaks the sūtra into two separate sūtras. He begins a new adhikarana here (three sūtras) concerned with showing that vidyā or devotion based on knowledge alone is the means to salvation. Thus: Sūtra 48.—"But vidyā alone (is the means to salvation), on account of specification, (i e. because Scripture mentions it exclusively, neither karma nor a combination of vidyā and karma)."¹ Sūtra 49 —"And because (salvation results) from the direct vision (of the Lord)." That is, the direct vision of the Lord is attainable through vidyā alone. Hence vidyā alone is the cause of salvation.² CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 47 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE GREATER FORCE OF DIRECT SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT AND THE REST, (THERE IS) NO SETTING ASIDE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the greater force" of the direct scriptural state- ment", viz : "For they are piled up by the mind alone" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12 ³); of the indicatory mark; "All beings at all times pile up (those fires) for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12 ⁴); and of the syntactical connection: "For through know- ledge alone these are piled up for one who knows thus" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12 ⁵), there is "no setting aside" of the fact that these fires are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. ¹ G.B. 3.3.48, p. 202, Chap. 3. ² Op. cit., 3.3.49, p. 203. ³ P. 798, line 14. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ⁴ P. 798, lines 14-15. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ⁵ P. 798, line 15. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. 14

[SŪ. 3. 3. 47. 684 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 20.] Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. to say that those fires piled up by the mind and so on are here subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation, does not stand to reason. As in the text: "With mind they were placed" (Śat Br. 10.5 3, 3) there is no mention of an injunctive word, and as we do not perceive their connection with a fruit, so the fact of their being subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation is set aside by the context, concerned with a sacrifice consisting in action, and suggested to the mind by fires piled up by bricks—(the author) replies : There is "no setting aside", by the context, of the fact of their being subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Why ? "On account of the greater force of direct scriptural statement and the rest" than the context By the words "and the rest", indicatory mark and syntactical connection are to be understood. The direct scriptural text is: "For these are piled up by knowledge alone" (Śat. Br. 10.5 3, 12). The indicatory mark is: "All beings at all times pile up these for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12). The syntactical connection is : "For by knowledge alone these are piled up for one who knows thus" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 12). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 50 in his commentary. Here he concludes the section about vidyā being the only means to salvation. It may be objected that some texts speak of karma as the means to salvation, while some texts again speak of the combination of karma and vidyā as such a means. The answer is: "And on account of the greater force of Scrip- ture and so on (there is) no setting aside (of our view)." That is, the scriptural texts quoted by us in support of our view that vidyā alone is the cause of release is of a far greater authority than the Smṛti texts quoted by the prima facie objector to prove his case.¹ ¹ G.B. 3.3.50. 14B

[SŪ. 3. 3. 48 ADH. 20 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 685 CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 48 "ON ACCOUNT OF INSEPARABLE ADJUNCTS AND THE REST, LIKE THE SEPARATENESS OF OTHER COGNITIONS, AND (BECAUSE IT) IS SEEN, THAT HAS BEEN SAID." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the inseparable adjuncts" like hymns, recitations and so on 1, mentioned in the text. "By mind the cups were taken in them" (Śat. Br 10 5.3, 3 2), and on account of direct scriptural statement and the rest,3 the sacrifice consisting in meditation is indeed different, "like the separateness of other vidyās", such as, the Śāṇḍilya- vidyā and so on This being so, an injunction is to be supposed "And" it is "found" that in the case of what is similar to a mere state- ment, e g. in the passage: "What alone one does with knowledge" (Chānd. 1.1.10 4), an injunction is supposed. It has been "stated" as well: "But the texts, on account of being new" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 10.4.22 5) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection stated above, viz. that because of the non- mention of an injunctive word in the text: "By mind alone they were placed" (Śat. Br. 10.5 3, 3), and because we do not perceive their connection with a fruit,—to say that they are subordinate members of a sacrifice consisting in meditation does not stand to reason,— (the author) replies: The sacrifice consisting in meditation is indeed different from the sacrifice consisting in action, and (hence) the fact that they (i.e. fires) are the subordinate members of the former does stand to reason. Why? "On account of the inseparable adjuncts and the rest," i e. on account of the inseparable adjuncts, transference, Scripture and so on. Among these, the inseparable adjuncts, (i.e. the attendant performances) are stated in the text: "By mind the cups were taken in them" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 3). As a sacrifice consisting in action and

1 This last portion "like . . . so on" is omitted in the C.S.S. ed. 2 Ś, R, Bh, Śk. 3 See V.P.S. 3.3.47. 4 Śk. 5 P. 453, vol. 2. R, Śk.

[sū. 3. 3. 48. 686 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 20 ] its subordinate members are directly perceivable, these would be meaningless if there be not a separate sacrifice consisting in medi- tation The inseparable adjuncts of a sacrifice are the cups, hymns, recitation and so on. The transference, viz. "Of these, each is as great as the former" (Śat. Br 10.5.3, 11) has been mentioned above. Such a transference does not fit in if there be no difference (between these two)¹. The scriptural text and the rest have been indicated above.² With regard to this, a parallel instance is cited thus: "Like the separateness of other cognitions" Just as other cognitions like the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest are different from a sacrifice consisting in action, as well as from other vidyās, owing to their respective peculiar adjuncts, so is the case here too. This being so, an injunction is to be supposed. "And" it is "found" that in the case of what is similar to a mere statement, e g. in the text: "What alone one does with knowledge" (Chānd. 1.1.10) and so on, an injunction is supposed. "That has been said," thus: "But the texts, on account of being new" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 10.4 22). Their connec- tion with a fruit too may be known from the transference: "Of these, each one is as great as the former" (Śat. Br. 10.5.3, 11) COMPARISON Baladeva He breaks this sūtra into two different sūtras:—"Anubandhā- dibhya" and "Prajñāntara . . . . taduktam," and interprets them absolutely differently. Thus: Sūtra 51.—He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the worship of holy men. Hence the sūtra: "On account of injunction and so on". That is, Scripture expressly enjoins the worship of great and good men, and hence such an worship must be undertaken as an auxiliary and indirect means to salvation.³ Sūtra 52.—He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), con- cerned with showing that the devotees realize and intuit the Lord differently. He reads "dṛṣṭiś ca" in place of "dṛṣṭaś ca". Hence the sūtra: "And like the difference between prajñā and the other (sort of knowledge) the perception (of the Lord too differs in the case ¹ Vide under V.K. 3.3.22. ² Vide V.K. 3.3.47. ³ G.B. 3.3.51. pp. 206–208, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3. 3. 49. ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 687 of different devotees), that has been said". That is, in the Bṛha- dāraṇyaka (Bṛh. 4.4.21 ¹), two sorts of knowledge, viz. vijñāna and prajñā, are spoken of. The first is intellectual knowledge or mere conception, the latter is intuitional knowledge or direct realization. Now, just as there is a difference between intellect and intuition, so there is a difference among the intuitions themselves. That is, different devotees, following different paths, come to have different intuitions or visions of the Lord. This has been declared in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 3.14.1 ²). CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 49 "NOT EVEN ON ACCOUNT OF RESEMBLANCE, ON ACCOUNT OF OBSERVATION, AS IN THE CASE OF DEATH, NOR, VERILY, (THERE IS ANY) BECOMING THE WORLD." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Not even on account of their resemblance to the mental cup, they are subordinate members of a sacrifice consisting in action, since they are found to be of the form of meditation. In spite of the resemblance of both fire and the person in the sun to death,—as stated in the texts: "He, verily, is death who is the person within this orb" (Śat. Br. 10.5.2. 3 ³), "Fire, verily, is death" (Bṛh. 3.2.10 ⁴),—the difference (between them) remains; "nor verily" does fire (actually) become the world in accordance with the passage: "The world, O Gautama, is a fire" (Chānd. 5.4.1 ⁵). Vedānta-kaustubha (The author) condemns the statement made above, viz. that like the mental (cup), the fires piled up by the mind and so on too are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in action.

¹ Vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta. ² G.B. 3.3. 52, p. 209, Chap. 3. "Yathā kratu asmin loke puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati." ³ P. 793, line 5. Also repeated in various places of the same chapter. Vide p. 794, lines 14-15; p. 795, lines 19-20, etc. Ś, R, Bb, Śk. ⁴ Ś. ⁵ Ś, Bh.

[SŪ. 3 3. 49. 688 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 20 ] "Even on account of the resemblance," in point of being mental, of the fires piled up by the mind and the rest to the mental cup,— mentioned in the text: "With this (earth) as the jug, with the sea as the juice, I take the cup, offered to Prajāpati, for you",—they are not to be taken as the subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in action. Why? Because we find from Scripture and the rest ¹ that they are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. The sense is that a minor resemblance does not invalidate a major difference. With regard to this, (the author) states a parallel instance: 'As in the case of death". Just as, though fire and the person within the sun resemble each other in point of being denoted by the same word 'death' in the texts "He, verily, is death who is the person within this orb" (Śat. Br. 10.5.2, 3), "The fire, verily, is death" (Bṛh 3 2.10), they are still different from each other; or just as, in accordance with the text: "This world, O Gautama, is the fire" (Chānd 5.4 1), the world does not (actually) become the fire,—so though the fires piled up by the mind and so on and the mental cup resemble each other in point of being mental, they still remain mutually different. COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different. The prima facie objectors say that since the power of the actual fire is transferred to the mental fires (Śat. Br. 10 5.3, 11), the latter must be actual brick-built fires like the former. The answer is: "Not even on account of resemblance (i.e. transference) (an identity) between them results), for (it is) found (that there is transference even when there is no identity), as in the case of death, for (there is) no attaining the world (of death by the person in the sun)". That is, the mere transference of the property of one thing to another is by no means an indication of an actual identity between them, for it is found that sometimes such a transference is based on a single point of similarity. E.g. the person within the orb of the sun is said to be death (Śat. Br. 10.5.2, 3), but there is only one point of resemblance between them, viz. destructive

¹ See above V.K. 3 3.47.

[sū. 3. 3. 50. ADH. 20.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 689 power, and no resemblance in other points. The person within the sun, e.g., does not occupy the world of death.¹ Baladeva This is sūtra 53 in his commentary. Interpretation absolutely different. The prima facie objector points out that if the vision of the Lord be the cause of salvation ², then when the Lord descends on earth as an incarnation, viz. Rāma and so on, everyone who sees Him must become freed immediately. The answer is: “Even on account of the common perception (of the Lord as an incarnation, there is no universal release), like death (which is) not (the cause) of salvation, but) the attainment of (other particular) worlds”. That is, death does not necessarily lead to release, but more often to other worlds like heaven and so on. Similarly, all visions of the Lord are not the cause of release, but the vision of the Lord on earth as an incarnation leads to heavenly regions alone.³ CORRECT CONCLUSION (end) SŪTRA 50 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF WHAT IS SUBSEQUENT, THE BEING OF THIS KIND OF THE WORD (IS ESTABLISHED), THERE IS CONNECTION WITH (ACTION), ON THE OTHER HAND, ON ACCOUNT OF MAJORITY.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On account also of the immediately following (section), viz.: “This world, verily, is piled up by the fire” (Śat. Br. 10.5.4, 1⁴), this text, referring to the fires piled up by the mind and so on, is of such a kind. “On account of the majority,” i.e. numerosity, of the details of (actual) fire which are to be accepted in the fires piled up by the mind and so on, there is the “connection” (of these mental fires) in the very vicinity of a fire built up by action. ¹ Śrī. B. 3.3.49, p 331, Part 2; Śk. B. 3.3.49, p. 369, Parts 10 and 11. ² Vide G.B. 3.3.49 above ³ P. 798, line 17. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. Correct quotation: “Agniś cita”, in which case the quotation would mean. “This world, verily, is the piled up fire.” ⁴ Correct quotation “Agniś Cita”, meaning “piled up fire”, and not “Agni-Cita”.