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

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.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 55. 698 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 23.] word "or" means 'and,' i.e. and just as the sacred formula which accompanies the taking of the stone for grinding the rice, viz. "Thou art a cock" (M. Saṃ. 1 1.6), mentioned in one place, is applicable in other places as well, so is the case here. By the words "and the like", it is meant that just as the preliminary offerings, mentioned in one place, are applicable in other places also (so is the case here). Hence, it is established that the meditations founded on the sub- ordinate members (of sacrifices) like the udgītha and the rest, mentioned in one place, are connected with the udgītha and the rest, mentioned elsewhere. Here ends the section entitled "Connected with the subsidiary parts" (22). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 58 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic, viz. the different modes of worshipping the Lord, by giving a second illustration, thus: "Or, as in the case of the sacred formulæ and the rest, (there is) no contradiction", that is, just as some formulæ are employed in many ceremonies,—some in two, some in one only,— so some men worship the Lord in several ways, i.e. with mixed sentiments or devotion, some only in one.¹ Adhikaraṇa 23: The section entitled "The superiority of the plentitude". (Sūtra 55) SŪTRA 55 "(THERE IS) SUPERIORITY OF THE PLENTITUDE, AS IN THE CASE OF A SACRIFICE, FOR THUS (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha With regard to the Vaiśvānara-vidyā ², the meditation on the aggregate is commended, just as there is a single performance of the ¹ G.B. 3.3.58, pp. 222-223, Chap. 3. ² See under Br. Sū. 3.3.31.

[sū. 3. 3. 55. · ADH 23.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 699 Paurṇa-māsa sacrifice and the rest together with the subsidiary parts. Thus, the scriptural text : ‘“Your head would have fallen off if you had not come to me”’ (Chānd. 5.12.2 ¹), designating the fault involved in the meditation on each limb, shows the excellence of the meditation on the aggregate. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out above that in accordance with scriptural statements, meditations mentioned in one place are applicable to other places. Why should we not, then, meditate on the parts in the Vaiśvānara-vidyā, in accordance with scriptural statement ?—To this objection (the author) replies. In the Vaiśvānara-vidyā, from the questions and answers of the six sages, viz. Prācīnaśāla and the rest and king Kekaya, we learn of a meditation on the Vaiśvānara (or the Universal Soul) in its separate aspect, viz. the heavenly world, the sun, the wind, the ether, the earth,—as well as in its aggregative aspect. Here the doubt is, viz. whether one should meditate on the separate parts or on the aggregate. On the suggestion that in accordance with the scriptural texts laying down an injunction regarding the meditation on the separate parts, one should meditate on the separate parts,— We reply: There is “superiority”, i.e. excellence, “of the plenti- tude,” i.e. of the meditation on the aggregate alone, and not of the meditations on the separate parts,—since the object to be meditated on being Vaiśvānara alone, having (different) limbs like the heaven as its head and so on, the beginning and the end form a connected whole. “As in the case of a sacrifice.” That is, just as the single performance of sacrifices like Paurṇa-māsa and the rest in their entirety is intended to be designated, but not of the separate parts like the preliminary offerings and the rest, so is the case here also. “For,” the scriptural text, designating the fault involved in the medita- tion on the separate parts, viz. : ‘“Your head would have fallen off had you not come to me”’ (Chānd. 5.12.2), ‘“You would have become blind had you not come to me”’ (Chānd. 5.13.2) and so on, “shows” “thus”, i.e. that the meditation on the aggregate alone is to be undertaken and not meditation on the separate parts. It is not to be said also that (on the above view) the texts enjoining meditating on the separate parts will become meaningless, ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk. 15

[SŪ. 3. 3. 55. 700 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 23.] viz. those beginning with the question of the king: " 'Auhamanyava, whom do you worship as the soul?' 'The heaven alone, O reverend king.' He said: 'The brightly shining one whom you worship as the soul is verily the universal soul' " (Chānd 5.12.1 ¹) and so on,—since as it is the meditation on the aggregate which is to be enjoined through the explanatory reiterations of the meditations on the separate parts, those texts are concerned with explanatory reiterations only. More- over, having rejected the meditation on the separate parts, Scripture mentions the result of the meditation on the aggregate only thus: "He eats food in all the worlds, in all beings, in all selves" (Chānd. 5 18.1). Hence, it is established that the meditation on the aggregate alone is to be undertaken Here ends the section entitled "The superiority of the plentitude" (23) COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 59 in his commentary He takes it as forming an adhikarana by itself, concerned with an altogether different topic, viz. the meditation on the Lord as possessed of the attribute of plurality or manifoldness. Hence the sūtra: "On account of the pre-eminence of (the attribute of) muchness, (the Lord is to be meditated on as possessed of this attribute), as in the case of a sacrifice, for thus (Scripture, i.e. Chānd. 7.2.3, 1) shows". That is, just as a sacrifice is a sacrifice even when the sacrificer first begins it, and remains a sacrifice even when he has finished it, and just as this conception of the sacrifice is the most essential element involved in all sacrifices, so the manifoldness of the Lord, i.e. His appearing in many forms, is the most essential of all His attributes, and therefore must be included in all meditations on Him.² ¹ Quotation given in the text is all wrong. ² G.B. 3.3.59, pp. 224-225, Chap. 3. 15B

[sū. 3. 3. 56. ADH. 24.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 701 Adhikarana 24: The section entitled "Differ- ence of words". (Sūtra 56) SŪTRA 56 "(THE VIDYĀS ARE) DIVERSE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF WORDS AND SO ON." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is diversity among the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest. Why? "On account of the difference of words and so on" regarding them. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, by showing ¹ that in spite of Brahman, the object to be meditated on, being one and the same, there are diverse meditations as there are different texts about them and so on, (the author) is after that removing the following doubt: It has been pointed out imme- diately above that in spite of there being injunctive texts regarding the meditations on the separate parts, the meditation on the Whole is the best of all, as the object meditated on is everywhere the same. Similarly, in spite of there being injunctive texts regarding different kinds of meditations on Brahman, such as the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest, all these meditations must be one and the same, as the object meditated on is everywhere the same (viz. Brahman). The doubt is as to whether all the meditations on Brahman which result in final emancipation, consisting in the attainment of Brahman, viz. the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā ², the Bhūma-vidyā ³, the Sad- vidyā ⁴, the Dahara-vidyā ⁵, the Upakosala-vidyā ⁶, the Vaiśvānara- vidyā ⁷, the Ānandamaya-vidyā ⁸, the Akṣara-vidyā ⁹, and so on, ¹ Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason. ² Vide Br. Sū. 3.3 31. ³ Bhūma-vidyā or the doctrine of the Plenty taught by Sanatkumāra to Nārada. Vide Chānd. 7 13. Vide also V.K. 1.3.8. ⁴ Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.35. ⁵ Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.31. ⁶ Op. cit. ⁷ Op. cit. ⁸ Ānandamaya-vidyā or the doctrine of the Self consisting of bliss. Vide Tait. 2. ⁹ Akṣara-vidyā or the doctrine of the Imperishable taught to Gārgī by Yājñavalkya. Vide Bṛh. 3.8. Vide also V.K. 3.3.33.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 56. 702 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 24.] as well as the Prāṇa-vidyā ¹ and the rest which have a special object and a special result, are to be undertaken collectively or separately. The prima facie view is that though there are injunctions with regard to each of the meditations, yet as the object to be meditated on is everywhere the same, they are to be undertaken collectively. With regard to it, we reply: "Diverse". The meditations are diverse. Why? "On account of the difference of words and so on," i.e. as there are different texts about them like: 'Knows', 'Let one meditate', 'Let one form a resolution' (Chānd. 3.14.1), "But let one desire to enquire into the Plenty" (Chānd. 7.2.3, 1), "Let one meditate on Truth" (Bṛh 4.1.4) and so on. The sense is this. Though the object to be meditated on is the same, yet these meditations are not exactly identical, since the object to be meditated on has different forms, as (variously) qualified by the special attributes mentioned in the texts designating those special meditations. By the words "and so on" other grounds, besides texts, for taking sacrificial acts as different, as demonstrated in the section concerned with that topic ², viz. repetition, number, name, attribute and context, are to be understood. These establish that the meditations are different here too. Here ends the section entitled "Difference of words" (24). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 60 in his commentary. He too takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, but interprets it in a sectarian manner thus: "(The meditations on the different forms of the Lord are) different, on account of the difference of words and so on. That is, the medita- tion on Kṛṣṇa, e.g., is different from the meditation on Nṛsiṁha, because the two words 'Kṛṣṇa' and 'Nṛsiṁha' are different, their forms are different and their mantras too are different.³ ¹ Prāṇa-vidyā or the doctrine of the primacy of the vital-breath. Vide Bṛh. 6.1; Praśna 2; Kauṣ. 3. Vide also V.K. 3.3.10. ² Vide Pū. Mī. Sū. 2.2.1 ff. ³ G.B. 3.3.60, p. 225, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3 3. 57 ADH. 25.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 703 Adhikaraṇa 25: The section entitled “Option”. (Sūtras 57-58) SŪTRA 57 “(THERE IS) OPTION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DISTINCTION OF THE RESULT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha It has been shown that the various meditations (on Brahman) are not identical but different from one another. There is “option” of performance with regard to them, “on account of the non-distinction of result”. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been stated above that the meditations are ‘diverse’. Now, the mode of performing them, having the attainment of Brahman as their result, is being considered. The doubt is as to whether these Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, Bhūma-vidyā, Sad-vidyā and the rest, which result in the attainment of Brahman, are to be undertaken collectively or optionally. On the suggestion that like the Agni-hotra, Daśa-pūrṇa-māsa and the rest, they are to be undertaken collectively,— (The author) says: “Option”, i.e. any one alone is to be under- taken. Why? “On account of the non-distinction of the result,” i.e. because all the meditations on Brahman lead, without distinction, to the attainment of His nature. That is to say, as our purpose is served through one alone, it is not necessary for us to perform all the rest. Compare the scriptural and Smṛti texts like: “The knower of Brahman attains the highest” (Tait. 2.1), ‘“My devotees go to me even”’ (Gītā 7.23) and so on. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 61 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with showing that the meditations on the different forms of the Lord, such as Kṛṣṇa, Rāma and so on,

704 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 58. ADH. 25.] are optional, since any one of them leads to release. Hence, the devotee should choose one form and stick to it.¹ SŪTRA 58 “BUT (THE MEDITATIONS BRINGING ABOUT) OBJECTS OF DESIRE MAY BE COMBINED TOGETHER OR NOT AT WILL, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF THE FORMER REASON.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is no restriction with regard to the performance of (medita- tions) having results other than the attainment of Brahman, “on account of the absence of the former reason”, which involves such a restriction. Vedānta-kaustubha This aphorism supplies a counter-instance with a view to confirm- ing the stated view. “But the (meditations leading to) objects of desire,” i.e. the symbolic meditations having results other than the attainment of Brahman, set forth in the texts: “Verily, he who meditates on Name as Brahman comes to have freedom of movement as far as Name goes” (Chānd. 7.1.5), “He who knows this wind thus as the child of the quar- ters, mourns not for a son” (Chānd. 3.15.2) and so on, “may be com- bined together or not at will”, like the sacrificial acts which bring about heaven and the rest as results. Why ? “On account of the absence of the former reason,” i.e. on account of their not having the same result. Hence it is established that just as (the meditations) which have results other than the attainment of Brahman are to be undertaken at one’s will, without any restriction, by those who aim at those results, so, contrarily to them, (the meditations) which have the attainment of Brahman as their result are to be undertaken optionally by one who desires for salvation, as all these meditations produce the very same result. Here ends the section entitled “Option” (25). ¹ G.B. 3.3.61, p. 226, Chap. 3.

[sū. 3. 3. 59. ADH. 26.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 705 COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 61 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation like Nimbārka's. Adhikarana 26: The section entitled "Of the same nature as the bases".¹ (Sūtras 59–64) PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtras 59–62) SŪTRA 59 "(THE MEDITATIONS BASED) ON THE SUBSIDIARY PARTS (OF SACRIFICES) ARE OF THE SAME NATURE AS THEIR BASES." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha (The author) raises an objection, viz. On account of numerous indicatory marks, there is a regular inclusion in sacrifices of the meditations based on their subsidiary parts like the udgītha and the, rest. The meditations based on the udgītha and the rest are of the nature of subsidiary parts like the udgītha. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been pointed out that the meditations aiming at objects of desire are to be practised at will. Now, although it has been pointed out under the aphorism: "Non-restriction with regard to the specification of that" (Br. Sū. 3.3.41) that those meditations also which are based on the subsidiary parts of sacrifices may be included in those sacrifices at will,—yet with a view to confirming it strongly, (the author) raises an objection, viz. that as these (meditations on the subsidiary parts of sacrifices) subserve those sacrifices, as the subsidiary parts themselves do, they are to be included in sacrifices regularly. On the doubt, viz. whether the meditations which are based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, such as the udgītha and the ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 3.3.41, where the topic has already been treated.

[sū. 3. 3. 60. 706 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 26 ] rest, as set forth in the passages. “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1 1) and so on, are to be included regularly in the sacrificial acts like the subsidiary parts themselves, or at will—(the prima facie objector says ) Regularly like the sub- sidiary parts themselves So he says: “In the subsidiary parts” and so on. That is, with regard to the sacrificial acts, the meditations based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts are “of the same nature as their bases”. The means, just as the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, like the udgītha and the rest, are subsidiary parts, so are the meditations based on them. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 63 in his commentary. He too begins an adhikaraṇa here (continuing up to the end of the chapter), but concerned with an altogether different topic, viz. the meditation on the various limbs of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: “In the limbs (of the Lord), (the qualities or gestures), appropriate to them (are to be meditated on)”. That is, one should meditate on the eyes of the Lord benevolent, the face as smiling and so on”.¹ PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued) SŪTRA 60 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF TEACHING.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And on account of the teaching, viz. “Let one meditate on the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1²), there is a regular inclusion. Vedānta-kaustubha And as the passage teaches that these meditations are based on the udgītha: “Let one meditate on the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1.1), there is a regular inclusion of the meditation in sacrificial works. ¹ G.B. 3.3.63, p. 230, Chap. 3. ² R, Sk

[SŪ. 3. 3 61. ADH. 26 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 707 COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 64 in his commentary. He reads “Śiṣṭaiś Ca” instead of “Śiṣṭeś Ca”. He continues here the topic of the meditation on the limbs of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: “And (such a meditation is performed) by those who are taught”.¹ ——— PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued) SŪTRA 61 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF COMBINATION” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And on account of the performance together of the praṇava and the udgītha, in accordance with the text: ‘From the seat of the Hotṛ² simply, he sets right the wrong utterances of the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.5.5³). Vedānta-kaustubha “And on account of the combination,” i.e. performance together, of the praṇava, mentioned in the Ṛg-veda, and udgītha, mentioned in the Sāma-veda, in accordance with the text: “From the seat of the Hotṛ simply, he sets right the wrong utterances of the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.5.5), it is known that there is a regular inclusion of meditation in sacrificial acts. Owing to the potency of the combination of the praṇava and the udgītha, the priest who chants the udgītha sets right the ‘bad udgītha’, i.e. that udgītha which, though chanted by himself, has been chanted wrongly owing to the lack of his proper knowledge of accents and so on, ‘from the seat of the Hotṛ’, i.e. by means of the work of the Hotṛ, viz. the act of reciting,—this is the meaning of the scriptural text. ¹ G.B. 3.3.64, p. 230, Chap. 3. ² One of the four kinds of officiating priests who recites the Ṛgveda. ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 3. 62. 708 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 26.] COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 65 in his commentary. It may be objected that a Chāndogya text (Chānd. 1.6.7) mentions only the lotus-like eyes of the Lord, but not His other limbs. Hence this text must be defective. The answer is: "(There is) no (discrepancy in this text) on account of comprehensiveness". The word "na" (=no) is to be supplied from sūtra 3.3.67. The sense is that the description of the eyes only must be supposed to involve the description of other members of the body of the Lord, and hence the description is not defective.¹ PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded) SŪTRA 62 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL TEXT ABOUT THE COMMON- NESS OF ATTRIBUTES." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And on account of the scriptural text about the commonness of attribute," viz. "Thereby this triad . . . . ² exists" (Chānd. 1.1.9 ³). Vedānta-kaustubha And on account of the scriptural mention of the commonness of "attribute", i.e. of the Om-kāra, the basis of meditation, in all sacri- ficial works, thus: "Thereby this triad . . . . . exists" (Chānd. 1.1.9). The meaning is that 'thereby', i.e. by the Om-kāra, the basis of medita- tion, 'the triad exists', i.e. the works mentioned in the three Vedas proceed.⁴ The sense is that those meditations too which are based on ¹ G.B. 3.3.65, p. 231, Chap. 3. ² Correct quotation: "Tenāyaṁ trayī vidyā vartate". ³ Ś, R, Śk. ⁴ The text continues: "With 'Om' the Adhvaryyu gives orders, with 'Om' the Hotṛ recites, with 'Om' the Udgātṛ sings".

[sū. 3. 3. 63. ADH. 26.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 709 the subsidiary parts are to be regularly included in those sacrifices, just like the subsidiary parts themselves. COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 66 in his commentary. He continues here the topic of the meditation on the limbs of the Lord. He takes this to be setting forth a prima facie view Hence the sūtra: “(Every limb of the Lord must be meditated on as possessed of the powers or attributes of all the rest), on account of a scriptural text about the commonness of attributes.” That is, a text in the Bhagavad-gītā, viz. “Everywhere that has hands and feet” (Gītā 13.14), shows that every limb of the Lord can discharge the function of every other limb. Hence every member must be so meditated on.¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 63-64) SŪTRA 63 “OR NOT, ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIPTURE NOT DECLARING (THEIR) ACCOMPANYING (SACRIFICES).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is no fixed rule that the meditations on the subsidiary parts of sacrifices are to be included always in those sacrifices, just like the subsidiary parts themselves, since Scripture does not declare them to be subsidiary parts of sacrifices. Vedānta-kaustubha Now (the author) refutes it. The statement that there is a regular inclusion, in sacrificial acts, of the meditations based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts,

¹ G.B. 3.3.66, p. 231, Chap. 3.

710 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 3 64. ADH. 26.] such as the udgītha, like those subsidiary parts themselves, is not tenable. Why? "On account of Scripture not declaring (their) accompanying " That is, Scripture declares that the subsidiary parts of sacrifices should always accompany the sacrifices themselves. Compare the text: "Having taken the graha ¹, having raised the camas ², he should begin the stotra ³ (Tait. Sam. 3.1.2, 4 ⁴) But there is no such declaration about the meditations (on the subsidiary parts). COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 67 in his commentary Here he refutes the prima facie view, mentioned in the previous sūtra, thus: "Or not, (i.e. every limb of the Lord is to be meditated on as possessed of its peculiar attributes only), because there is no scriptural text (to the effect that it is to be meditated on) as accompanied by (the attributes of other limbs)".⁵ CORRECT CONCLUSION (end) SŪTRA 64 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIPTURAL TEXT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha This is so also because the scriptural text: "Verily, the Brāhmaṇa priest who knows (or meditates) thus protects the sacrifice, the sacrificer, and all officiating priests" (Chānd. 4.7.10 ⁶) shows that ¹ A graha is a vessel used for taking out a portion of fluid from a larger vessel, especially a vessel used for taking up the soma-juice ² A camasa is a vessel used at sacrifices for drinking the soma-juice. ³ A hymn of praise. ⁴ P. 247, lines 14-15. ⁵ G.B. 3.3.67, p. 232, Chap. 3. ⁶ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 3 64. ADH. 26.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 711 there is no fixed rule that these meditations are to be regularly included (in the sacrifices) Here ends the third section of the third quarter of the Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā texts, by the reverend Nimbārka. Vedānta-kaustubha Further, as declared by Scripture itself, there is indeed no fixed rule that the meditations based on the subsidiary parts of sacrifices are to be regularly included in those sacrifices The scriptural text: "Verily, the Brāhmaṇa priest who knows (or meditates) thus protects the sacrifice, the sacrificer and all officiating priests" (Chānd. 4.7.10), designating the protecting of all sacrifices, sacrificers and the rest of the knowers by the Brāhmaṇa priest, shows that there is no fixed rule about the regular inclusion of meditations.¹ Hence it is established that there is no regular inclusion, in sacrificial acts, of the meditations based on their subsidiary parts, like the udgītha and the rest, but only optional inclusion, like the milking-vessel.² Here ends the section entitled "Of the same nature as the bases" (26). Here ends the third section of the third quarter of the holy Vedānta-kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, com- posed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of the reverend Nimbārka, the founder and teacher of the sect of the holy Sanatkumāra. ¹ For if meditation were included regularly in all sacrificial acts, then all priests would have such a knowledge and so the text would not have specially announced that a Brāhmaṇa priest who possesses such a knowledge protects others. ² See under V.P. 3.3.41.

712 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 3. 64. ADH. 26.] COMPARISON Baladeva This is sūtra 68 in his commentary. "And because it is seen." That is, it is more natural to suppose the eyes to see, the ears to hear and so on than to suppose every other member. Hence the conclusion is that every member of the body of the Lord is to be meditated on as (endowed with its own attributes) ¹ Résumé The third quarter of the third chapter contains. (1) 64 sūtras and 26 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka; (2) 66 sūtras and 36 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṁkara; (3) 64 sūtras and 26 adhikaranas, according to Rāmānuja; (4) 65 sūtras and 34 adhikaranas, according to Bhāskara; (5) 64 sūtras and 36 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha; (6) 68 sūtras and 34 adhikaranas, according to Baladeva. Śaṁkara breaks each of the sūtras 35 and 46 in Nimbārka's commentary into two separate sūtras. Rāmānuja inverts the order of sūtras 31 and 32 in Nimbārka's commentary. Bhāskara breaks sūtra 46 in Nimbārka's commentary into two separate sūtras. Śrīkaṇṭha inverts the order of sūtras 29-30, and 31-32 in Nimbārka's commentary Baladeva breaks each of sūtras 3, 35, 46 and 48 in Nimbārka's commentary into two separate sūtras. ¹ G.B. 3.3.68, p. 232, Chap. 3.

THIRD CHAPTER (Adhyāya) FOURTH QUARTER (Pāda) Adhikaraṇa 1: The section entitled "The end of men". (Sūtras 1-20) SŪTRA 1 "THE END OF MEN (ARISES) FROM THIS, ON ACCOUNT OF SCRIP- TURAL STATEMENT, SO BĀDARĀYAṆA THINKS." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Brahman can be attained through knowledge ¹, "on account of the scriptural statement", viz.: "The knower of Brahman attains the highest" (Tait. 2.1 ²) "so" the reverend "Bādarāyaṇa" thinks. Vedānta-kaustubha In the previous quarter, discussions about the non-difference of meditations, the consequent combination or non-combination of details and so on were undertaken. Now, in this quarter, the problem as to whether the end of men arises from knowledge or from action, its subsidiary part, and so on is being discussed. On the doubt, viz. whether the end of men results from knowledge or from action, a subsidiary part of meditation, first (the author) begins with the correct conclusion. The end, i.e. the purpose, of men, viz. the attainment of Brahman, arises "from this", i.e. from know- ledge. Why? "On account of scriptural statement," i.e. on account of scriptural statements like: "The knower of the self crosses over grief" (Chānd. 7.1.3), "Verily, he who knows the Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed" (Muṇḍ. 3.2.9), "The knower of Brahman attains the highest" (Tait. 2.1), "He attains all the worlds" ¹ That is, knowledge leading to meditation, not knowledge in the Śaṁkarite sense. ² Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ( 713 )

[SŪ. 3. 4. 2. 714 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.] (Chānd. 8.7.1, 23. 8 12.6) ¹, “I know this great person of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness” (Vj.S. 31 18; Śvet. 3.8), “Knowing him thus one becomes immortal on earth, there is no other way to salvation” (Tait. Ār. 3.12 ²), “Just as the flowing rivers merge in the sea, discarding names and forms, so a knower, freed from name and form, attains the celestial Person, higher than the high” (Muṇḍ. 3.2 8), “When the seer sees the Golden-coloured creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahma, then the knower, having discarded merit and demerit, stainless attains the highest equality” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.3) and so on,—“so” the reverend “Bādarāyaṇa” thinks. COMPARISON Baladeva The word “puruṣārtha” does not mean only ‘salvation’ according to him, but all the four ends of men, viz. religious merit, wealth, enjoyment and salvation. The prima facie view is that meditation brings about salvation only and not heaven and the rest. The answer is that not only salvation, but all the four end of men arise from meditation ³ PRIMA FACIE VIEW (Sūtras 2–7) SŪTRA 2 “ON ACCOUNT OF BEING COMPLEMENTARY, (THE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FRUITS) ARE GLORIFICATION OF THE MAN, JUST AS IN OTHER CASES, SO JAIMINI (THINKS).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha As knowledge effects the purification of the agent who is a subsi- diary part of action, it is but a subsidiary part of action, on account of the agent “being complementary” to action. The scrip- tural statement about the fruit is “glorification”, just like the scrip- 1 Correct quotation: “Sarvāmś ca”, vide Chānd., p. 440. 2 P. 199. 3 G.B. 3.4.1.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 2. ADH. 1 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 715 tural statement about the fruit, viz the hearing of non-sinful verses, with reference to the objects made of the parṇa-wood.¹ Vedānta-kaustubha Having thus begun with the correct conclusion of the Upaniṣads, now (the author) is stating the prima facie view. Knowledge is a subsidiary part of action Why? "On account of being complementary," i e. because the self, which to be known, stands in a complementary relation to action, in consequence of being the agent, i.e. because any effort towards acts having heaven and the rest as their ends is possible if there be the knowledge of the self as different from the body and the rest on the part of the agent Hence as knowledge effects the purification of the agent, it too is a subsidiary element of action ². The scriptural statements about the fruit, on the other hand, such as: "The knower of the self crosses over grief" (Chānd. 7.1 3). "The knower of Brahman attains the highest" (Tait 2 1) and so on, may be taken as a "glorification of the man", i.e. mere glorification, "just as in other cases", i.e. just as in the case of objects, purification and acts, the scriptural statements about the fruit are mere glorifications. Thus, with regard to objects, there is the passage: "He whose sacrificial ladle is made of the parṇa-wood does not hear sinful verse" (Tait. Saṃ. 3 5.7 ³); with regard to purification, the passage: "He who anoints his eyes wards off the eye of his enemy"; and with regard to acts, the passage: "He who performs the prayāja and the anuyāja sacrifices makes, forsooth, an armour for this sacrifice" and ¹ The object, viz. the ladle, made of the parṇa-wood, is a subsidiary part of the sacrifice and hence the fruit ascribed to it, viz. the hearing of non-sinful verses, subserves the purpose of the sacrifice, i.e. glorifies it. Similarly, the agent, i.e. the sacrificer, is a subsidiary part of sacrifice, and hence the fruit ascribed to the knowledge of the self of the sacrificer subserves the sacrifice, i.e. glorifies it, but such a knowledge has no independent fruit of its own. ² That is, the agent, the sacrificer, cannot undertake the performance of sacrifices, leading to heaven and so on, unless he first knows that his soul is different from and survives the body, for evidently the body does not go to heaven, but the soul only. This knowledge of the real nature of the self as distinct from the body, therefore, qualifies the agent for undertaking the per- formance of sacrifices and as such is a complementary factor of sacrifices. ³ P. 311, lines 23-24, vol. 1. 16