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

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”.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 50. 690 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 20.] Vedānta-kaustubha "On account of what is subsequent" to the section concerned with the fires piled up by the mind and so on, viz. the section concerned with world which is filled, beginning "This world, verily, is piled up by the fire (Śat. Br. 10 5 4, 1), and on account of the preceding section,— implied by the term "and" (in the sūtra)—, beginning. "This orb that shines" (Sat. Br. 10 5 2, 1), the "text", i.e. the section coming between them, is "of that kind", i.e. concerned with an injunction about meditation. That is, on account of its association with a pre- ceding and a subsequent sections which have meditation for their primary topic, here too there is the primacy of meditation,—that is what it comes to. To this objection, viz. If in this section, there be the primacy of meditation, then what is the sense in beginning with action?— (the author) replies "On account of majority". That is, "on account of the majority" or numerosity of the details of the fire built up by action to be accomplished (mentally) in the case of the fires which are the subsidiary parts of meditation, there is the "connection", i.e. setting forth, of the fires, the subsidiary parts of meditation, after the fires which are subsidiary parts of action. Hence it is established that the fires piled up by the mind and the rest are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Here ends the section entitled "The majority of indicatory marks" (20). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 54 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the grace of the Lord. The prima facie view is that it cannot be said that the direct vision of the Lord alone, attainable through devotion 1, in the cause of salvation, for a text in the Mundaka (Muṇḍ. 3.2 3 2) shows that the vision of the Lord depends on the grace of the Lord. 1 Vide G.B. 3.3.49 above. 2 "Nāyamātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ", etc.

[sū. 3. 3. 51. ADH. 21 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 691 The answer is: “On account of what follows (i e. the immediately following text ¹), the being of that kind of the word (is established), (there is) the mention (of grace in the passage), on the other hand, on account of preponderance (i.e. because the grace of the Lord is the most predominating factor in attaining salvation)”. That is, the Muṇḍaka-text does imply that devotion is the cause of a direct vision of the Lord, and the latter a cause of emancipation, for the grace or choice by the Lord is not arbitrary, but is determined by the devotion of men ² Adhikaraṇa 21: The section entitled “Exist- ence in the body”. (Sūtras 51-52) PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtra 51) SŪTRA 51 “SOME (HOLD THAT THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS TO BE MEDITATED ON IN ITS STATE OF BONDAGE), ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXISTENCE (OF SUCH A SOUL) IN THE BODY.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha At the time of meditation, the individual soul is to be meditated on in its state of bondage, on account of the existence of such a soul alone “in the body”—so “some” (think). Vedānta-kaustubha Immediately above, an investigation has been undertaken into the fires piled up by the mind and so on as forming subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Now, the question is being considered, viz. in what form is the individual soul too, entitled to its fruit, to be sought for at the time of meditation ? The doubt is as to whether at the time of meditation, the individual soul is to be conceived of simply in its state of bondage,—i.e. in the form of a knower, a doer, an enjoyer and the rest,—or in its state of 1 “Nāyamātmā vala-hīnena labhyah”, etc. 2 G.B. 3.3.54, pp. 214 ff., Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 51. 692 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 21.] salvation, i.e. in its real nature, characterized by the manifested attributes of freedom from sins and the rest. With regard to it "some" think that it is to be conceived of in its state of bondage alone, i e. in the form of a knower and the rest. Why? On account of the non- existence "in the body", at that time, "of the soul" in its state of salvation, i.e. in its real nature as characterized by freedom from sins and so on. Or else, (an alternative explanation:) on account of the existence of such a soul alone, i.e. of the soul in its state of bondage. ¹ COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 53 in the commentary of Śaṃkara and 52 in that of Bhāskara. They take this adhikaraṇa to be concerned with a different problem, viz the relation between the soul and the body. This sūtra sets forth the opponent's view, viz. the view of the Cārvākas, that the soul is nothing but the body, since consciousness is found only when the body is present, and not found when it is absent. Hence, the sūtra: "Some (maintain the non-difference) of the soul (from the body), on account of the existence (of consciousness) if there be the body".² Baladeva This is sūtra 55 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the worship of the Lord in the different parts of the body. Hence the sūtra: "Some (recommend the worship) of the soul (viz the Lord) in the body, on account of the existence (of the Lord there)". That is, the Lord is to be worshipped in the different parts of the body, such as, the stomach, the heart, the top of the head and so on, since He exists in these places also and gives salvation to the devotee.³ ¹ Note that while Nimbārka reads only "bhāvāt", Śrīnivāsa reads both "abhāvāt" and "bhābāt". ² Ś.B. 3.3.53, pp. 838–840; Bh. B. 3.3.52 (written as 3.3.53), pp. 195-196. ³ G.B. 3.3.55, pp. 218-219, Chap. 3.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 52. ADH. 21 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 693 CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 52) SŪTRA 52 “BUT (THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS TO BE MEDITATED ON IN ITS STATE OF RELEASE) DIFFERENT (FROM ITS STATE OF BONDAGE, AND) NOT (IN ITS STATE OF BONDAGE), BECAUSE OF BECOMING OF THAT NATURE, AS IN THE CASE OF REALIZATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha ¹At the time of meditation, the individual soul is to be conceived of in its freed state, different from its state of bondage,—since during release, it is to become of that very form, just as one attains the Highest Self in accordance with meditation. Vedānta-kaustubha With regard to it, we reply: The word “but” implies emphasis. The individual soul is not to be conceived of simply in its state of bondage, i.e. simply in its form of a knower, a doer and so on. On the contrary, it is the real nature of the soul, in its state of release, possessed of the manifested attributes of freedom from sins and so on, and possessed of the attri- butes of being a knower and so on, which is “different” from its nature in its state of bondage, that is to be conceived of at the time of meditation. Why? “Because of becoming of that nature,” i.e. because during the state of release, the soul becomes “of that nature”, i.e. of the nature of its real form, conceived, in accordance with Scripture, at the time of meditation,² “As in the case of realiza- tion”. That is, just as there is the realization of Brahman in accord- ance with meditation, so is the case here, as declared by the scriptural texts: “As the purpose of man is in this world, so will he be on depart- ing” (Chānd. 3.14.1). “Howsoever he meditates on him, such alone he becomes” (Śat. Br. 10.5.2, 20 ³). Hence it is established that during ¹ The C.S.S. ed. adds “Tan na”—“that is not so”, p. 68. ² I.e. the form which is meditated on during bondage is the form which is attained later on during salvation. ³ P. 725, line 13. Cf. a very similar passage in Mudg. 3, p. 384, lines 8-9.

694 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 3. 52. ADH. 21.] the state of realization, the individual soul is to be conceived of in its state of release. Here ends the section entitled “Existence in the body” (21). COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara This is sūtra 54 in the commentary of Śaṃkara, sūtra 53 in that of Bhāskara. Here they answer the Cārvāka view that the soul is identical with the body. They interpret the sūtra in the same way, only Śaṃkara reads: “tad-bhāvābhāvitvāt”, instead of “tad-bhāva- bhāvitvāt”. Thus, according to him, the sūtra means: “(The soul is) different (from the body), not (identical) because the existence (of consciousness) does not depend on the existence of that (viz. the body), as in the case of perception”. That is, consciousness is not a quality of the body, since even where the body is present, there may be no consciousness, e.g. in the case of a dead body. Hence just as perception is other than the object perceived, so consciousness is other than the conscious body.¹ According to Bhāskara, the sūtra means : “(The soul is) different (from the body) not (identical) because the existence of (the qualities of the body) depend on the existence of that (viz. the body), as in the case of perception”. That is, consciousness cannot be an attribute of the body, since an attribute of the body exists when the body exists. But consciousness does not exist always when the body does, e.g. in a dead body.² Hence the two explanations are identical in spite of the difference of reading. Bhāskara's reading is prefer- able. Rāmānuja Interpretation same, only the phrase “upalabdhivat” interpreted differently, viz. just as the realization of Brahman, enjoined in Scrip- ture, means the realization of His real form, so exactly, self-realization too means the realization of the real form of the self.³ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ¹ Ś.B. 3.3.54, p. 840. ² Bh. B. 3.3.53 (written as 3 3.54), p. 196. ³ Śrī. B. 3.3.52, p. 337, vol. 2.

[sū. 3. 3. 53 ADH. 22.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 695 Baladeva This is sūtra 56 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (three sūtras), concerned with an absolutely different topic, viz. different kinds of realizations in accordance with the different kinds of devotion. Hence the sūtra: “(During release, there is) no (percep- tion of the Lord as possessed of the attributes) other (than those with which He was meditated upon in this life), on account of the existence (of the Lord) as having that nature (i e. attributes) (during release), as in the case of knowledge”. That is, when a man, conceiv- ing a thing in a particular form, meditates on it as such, he obtains that thing in that particular form. Similarly, the devotees who meditates on the Lord as the Sweet, realizes Him as such during release; and who meditates on Him as the Majestic, realizes Him as such.¹ Adhikaraṇa 22: The section entitled “Connected with the subsidiary parts”. (Sūtras 53-54) SŪTRA 53 “BUT (THE MEDITATIONS) CONNECTED WITH THE SUBSIDIARY PARTS, (ARE) NOT (RESTRICTED) TO (PARTICULAR) BRANCHES, FOR (THEY BELONG) TO EACH VEDA.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The meditations connected with the subsidiary parts of (sacrifices) like the udgītha, enjoined in the passage: “Let one meditate on this syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1 ²) and so on, do not rest upon (their own) branches ³, but are connected with “each Veda”, i.e. with all the branches ⁴, on account of the non-specification of the scriptural text about the udgītha. ¹ G.B. 3.3.56, p. 221, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh. ³ C.S.S. ed. reads “Sva-śākhāsu”, p. 68. ⁴ C.S.S. ed. reads “Kutaḥ”. Op cit.

696 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 53, ADH. 22.] Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out above that at the time of meditation, the particular form (which the individual soul has) at that time should be disregarded, and (its) special form, as characterized by the mani- fested (attributes) of freedom from sins and so on, is to be conceived of. Similarly, here too, since a particular form can accomplish the end, the meditations may rest upon the particular forms of the ud- gītha and the rest, i.e. be based on them, in whatever special forms these udgītha and the rest are mentioned in whatever particular branches with whatever special accents,—this doubt (the author) dispels now by stating his own view. The doubt is as to whether the meditations, founded on the sub- sidiary parts of sacrificial acts like the udgītha and the rest, such as: "Let one meditate on this syllable 'Om' as the udgītha" (Chānd, 1.1.1), "Let one meditate on the five-fold sāman in the worlds'. (Chānd. 2.1.1), " 'Hymn, hymn', people say. The hymn is, forsooth, the earth" (Ait. Ār. 2.1.2 1), "This world, verily, is the piled up fire" (Śat. Br. 10.5.4, 1 2) and so on, enjoined in all the branches of all the Vedas, are based on those particular forms of the udgītha and the rest in which they are read in those particular branches in those special accents, or are connected with the udgītha and the rest contained in all the branches. Here the prima facie view is that on account of proximity, they are based on those particular forms of the udgītha and the rest in which these udgītha and the rest are read in those particular branches in those special accents, but are not connected with the udgītha and the rest presented in a different branch. With regard to this, (the author) states the correct conclusion: "Connected with the subsidiary parts". The word "but" is meant for rejecting the prima facie view. Those meditations, "connected with the subsidiary parts", i.e. founded on the subordinate members of sacrifices, do not rest on the udgītha and the rest belonging to their own branches, but are connected with "each Veda", i.e. with the udgīthas and the rest represented in all the branches. The word "for" implies the reason, i.e. because in spite of the difference of the forms of the udgītha and the rest resulting from the difference of accents and so on, the scriptural text about the udgītha, viz "Let one meditate 1 P. 101. 2 P. 798, line 17.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 54. ADH 22.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 697 on the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.1.1) and so on, lays down no specification, and thereby proximity is set aside COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 57 in his commentary. Here he illustrates the doctrine that the Lord is realized differently by different devotees in accordance with the kind of devotion with which they worship Him Hence the sūtra: "But (the priests) are restricted to (particular) parts (of the sacrifice), (but are not appointed) to (all the) branches (of it), because (the parts are regulated) according to each Veda". That is, when a man is about to perform a sacrifice, he chooses several priests, all of whom are able to perform all the parts of it, and appoints them to certain offices And, the priests, so appointed by their master, must perform only the portions allotted to them, and not the others, and receive the fee accordingly. Similarly, it is the will of the Lord which determines which particular path of devotion a soul should follow, 1.e. whether they should meditate on Him as the Sweet, or as the Majestic,—and realize Him accordingly.¹ SŪTRA 54 "OR, AS IN THE CASE OF THE SACRED FORMULÆ AND THE LIKE, (THERE IS) NO CONTRADICTION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "As in the case of the sacred formulæ" like: "Thou art a cock" (M. Saṃ. 1.1.6 ²), or as in the case of preliminary offerings, there is "no contradiction" in applying meditations mentioned in one place to other places. Vedānta-kaustubha There is "no contradiction" in connecting meditations, set forth in one place, with the udgītha and the rest, set forth else- where, "as in the case of the sacred formulæ and the like." The G.B. 3.3.57, pp. 221-222, Chap 3. ² P. 6, line 14. Ś, Bh.