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

[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

716 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 3. ADH. 1.] so on. It has been said: “The statement about the end attained with regard to substance, quality and purification must be glorifica- tion, because they subserve the purpose of another” (Pū Mī Sū. 4.3 1¹). So is the case here too,—“so” the teacher “Jaimini” thinks. PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued) SŪTRA 3 “ON ACCOUNT OF THE OBSERVATION OF CONDUCT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On account of the conduct of Janaka and others as declared by the scriptural text “Verily, Janaka, the king of Videha, performed a sacrifice in which many presents were given” (Bṛh. 3 1 1²) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected that in accordance with the aphorisms, viz.. “Not the other, on account of inappropriateness” (Br. Sū 1.1.17), “And on account of the designation of difference” (Br. Sū 1.1 22), “And on account of inappropriateness, not the embodied one” (Br. Sū. 1.2.3) and so on; in accordance with the scriptural texts, viz.. “The eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious, the one among the many, who grants desires” (Kaṭha 5 13; Śvet. 6.13), “There are two unborn ones, the knower and the non-knower, the lord and the non-lord” (Śvet. 1.9), “The Lord of matter and soul, the controller of qualities, the cause of transmigratory existence, salvation, continuance and bondage” (Śvet. 6.16), “He is the cause, the lord of the lord of the sense-organs” (Śvet. 6.9), “He who is omniscient and all-knowing” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9; 2.2.7) and so on; and in accordance with the Smṛti-texts, viz.: ‘“Because I surpass the perish- able and am superior to the imperishable also, I am celebrated in world and in the Veda as the highest Person”’ (Gītā 15.18) and so on, the Highest Self, different in nature from the individual soul, ¹ P. 487, vol. 1. ² Ś, R, Bh, B 16B

[sū. 3 4. 4. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 717 has been established as the object to be known. He is not comple- mentary to action. Hence the knowledge relating to Him is not a subsidiary part of action,— (We reply·) On the ground of the indicatory marks mentioned by the Vedānta-texts themselves, the Vedānta-texts are concerned with the real nature of the agent, different from his body. Those indicatory marks are being stated. As Janaka and others, possessed of the knowledge of Brahman, are said to perform Sacrifices, etc , with knowledge, by scriptural and Smṛti texts like: "Verily, Janaka, the king of Videha, performed a sacrifice in which many presents were given" (Bṛh 3 1.1), "For by work alone Janaka and others attained to perfection" (Gītā 3 20) and so on, knowledge is a subsidiary part of action. PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued) SŪTRA 4 "ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT ABOUT THAT." ¹ Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "On account of the scriptural statement" about the subserviency of knowledge to action, viz.: "What alone one does with knowledge, with faith, with the mystic doctrine, that alone becomes more potent" (Chānd. 1.1.10 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha "That," i.e. the fact that knowledge is a subsidiary part of action, is indeed reasonable. Why? "On account of the scriptural state- ment", viz.: "What alone one does with knowledge, with faith and the mystic doctrine, that alone becomes more potent" (Chānd. 1.1.10). ¹ Note that while Nimbārka understands the word "tac chruteḥ" as a compound word and explains it as "tasya śruteḥ", Śrīnivāsa understands it as "Tat śruteḥ"—two separate words. ² Ś, R, Bh, Sk, B.

718 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 6. ADH. 1.] PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued) SŪTRA 5 "ON ACCOUNT OF LAYING HOLD OF." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And because the association of knowledge and work is declared by the text: "Knowledge and work lay hold of him" (Bṛh. 4.4.2 ¹). Vedānta-kaustubha On account of the scriptural statement about the association of knowledge and work too, viz "Knowledge and work lay hold of him" (Chānd. 1.1.10), it is known that knowledge is a subsidiary part of work. PRIMA FACIE VIEW (continued) SŪTRA 6 "ON ACCOUNT OF ENJOINMENT (OF WORK) ON THE PART OF ONE HAVING THAT (VIZ. KNOWLEDGE)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And "on account of the enjoinment" of work ² in the passage: "Having studied the Veda in the house of a teacher in accordance with rules in (the leisure) time left over from doing work for the teacher, having returned to his own home, studying his sacred text in some clean spot" (Chānd. 8.15.1 ³). Vedānta-kaustubha "On account of the enjoinment" of work "on the part of one having that", i.e. on the part of one possessed of the knowledge of

¹ Op. cit. ² The C.S.S. ed., p. 71, adds "on the part of one possessed of knowledge". ³ Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[sū. 3. 4. 8. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 719 all the Vedas, by the scriptural text, viz.: "Having studied the Veda in the house of a teacher, according to rules in time left over from doing work for the teacher, having returned to his own home, studying his sacred text in a clean spot" (Chānd. 8.15.1), knowledge is a subsidiary part of work PRIMA FACIE VIEW (concluded) SŪTRA 7 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF RESTRICTION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And on account of the restriction," viz.: "Only doing work here, let one desire to live a hundred years", and so on (Īśā 2) ¹. Vedānta-kaustubha "And on account of the restriction," viz : "Only doing work here, let one desire to live a hundred years Thus work adheres to you, to a man. There is no other way than that" (Īśā 2), knowledge is subservient to work alone. CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 8–20) SŪTRA 8 "BUT ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF WHAT IS SUPERIOR, SUCH (IS THE VIEW) OF BĀDARĀYAṆA, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT BEING SEEN." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha With regard to it, we reply: "On account of the teaching" of the Lord of all, the controller of all, who is "superior to" the individual soul, the agent, as the object ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B

[SŪ. 3. 4. 8 720 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1 ] to be known,—the view of the reverend “Bādarāyaṇa” is that “the end of men arises from this” (Br. Sū. 3. 4. 1), “On account of that being seen” from the texts: “He is the Lord of all” (Bṛh. 4. 4. 22 ¹), “Entered within, the ruler of men” (Tait. Ār. 3.11. 1, 2 ²), “The ruler of all, the controller of all” (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ³), “I ask about that Person taught in the Upaniṣads” (Bṛh. 3.9.26 ⁴), “The word which all the Vedas record” (Kaṭha 2.15 ⁵) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha On this suggestion, (the author) replies: The word “but” is for disposing of the prima facie view. The view of Jaimini,—that by way of effecting the purification of what is complementary to work, viz. the agent, knowledge, obtainable from the Upaniṣads, is a subsidiary part of work,—is not correct. On the contrary, “on account of the teaching of what is superior” to the individual soul, the agent, possessed of the stated marks, i.e. as the Highest Person,—the soul of all, free by nature from all faults, an abode of a mass of auspicious qualities, possessed of natural, infinite and inauspicious powers, the cause of the world, the Lord of matter and soul and the Lord of all,—is taught as the object of knowledge, as He alone is established as the object to be known by the Vedāntas, the end of men arises from knowledge,—“such” is the view of the reverend “Bādarāyaṇa”. Why? “On account of that being seen,” i.e. because texts are found which establish “that”, viz. the Highest Self alone, the object to be known, i.e. a multitude of texts are found establishing Him, such as: “All this has that for its self” (Chānd. 6.8.7, etc.), “Higher than the imperishable, the high” (Muṇḍ. 2.1.2), “Free from sins, ageless, deathless, griefless, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves” (Chānd. 8.7.1, 3), “He who is omniscient, all-knowing” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9; 2.2.7), “He consists of infinite auspicious qualities.— He is possessed of might, power, lordship and supreme knowledge” (V.P. 6.5.84 ⁶), “Supreme is his power, declared to be of various kinds, and natural is the operation of his knowledge and might” (Śvet. 6.8), “He is the cause, the lord of the lord of the sense-organs” (Śvet. 6.9), ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ R. ² P. 181. Not quoted by others. ³ Op. cit. ⁴ Op. cit. ⁵ Op. cit. ⁶ P. 837.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 9. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 721 "The lord of matter and souls" (Śvet. 6.16), "The word which all the Vedas record" (Kaṭha 2.15), '"I ask that Person taught in the Upaniṣads"' (Bṛh. 3 9.26), '"I am the source of all, everything originates from me"' (Gītā 10.8), '"There is nothing else higher than me, O Dhanañjaya"' (Gītā 7 7), '"And by all the Vedas I alone am to be known"' (Gītā 15 15) and so on COMPARISON Baladeva He interprets the sūtra thus "But on account of the teaching (of vidyā as) more than (or superior to) (karma)—" ¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 9 "BUT THE SCRIPTURAL DECLARATION IS EQUAL." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "The scriptural declaration,"—viz.: '"For what purpose shall we study, for what purpose shall we perform sacrifices"' ² and so on,—establishing that knowledge is not a subsidiary part of work, is of equal weight. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz.: "On account of conduct being seen" (Br. Sū. 3.4.3), knowledge is a subsidiary part of work,—we reply: "The scriptural declaration" of the non-performance of works by knowers, establishing that knowledge is not a subsidiary part of action, is of equal weight, such as: "Knowing this, forsooth, the sages descended from Kavaṣa said: 'For what purpose shall we study, for what purpose shall we perform sacrifices?'", "Knowing this, 1 G.B. 3.4.8, pp. 240-241, Chap. 1. 2 Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B.

722 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 10. ADH 1.] indeed, those ancient ones did not perform the Agni-hotra sacrifice" (Kauṣ. 2.5 ¹), "Verily, having known that self, the Brāhmaṇas, rising above the desires for sons, the desires for wealth,—² live the life of mendicants" (Bṛh 3.5.1) Our view is that the performance of works without any desire for results, but only with a desire for knowledge, is justified. This (the author) will state under the aphorism "And reference to all, on account of the scriptural text about sacrifice and so on, as in the case of a horse" (Br. Sū. 3.4.26). It has been stated by the Lord too thus: " 'By work also, Janaka and others attained perfection' " (Gītā 3.20), and " 'The knowers should similarly act without attachment, desiring the welfare of the world' " (Gītā 3.25). The sense is that if we hold that knowledge is a subsidiary part of work, then the scriptural text about the non-performance of work will come to be contradicted.³ CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 10 "(THE TEXT QUOTED BY THE prima facie OBJECTOR IS) NON- UNIVERSAL." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The scriptural text, viz.: "What alone one does with knowledge" (Chānd. 1.1.10 ⁴) is not concerned with all sorts of knowledge. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz.: "On account of the scriptural statement of that" (Br. Sū. 3 4.4), we reply: ¹ For correct quotation see Kauṣ., p. 114. ² 'Desires for worlds.' ³ I.e. if we hold that knowledge is not a subsidiary part of work, then those texts which do enjoin the performance of works on the part of knowers may very well be explained as enjoining the performance of works in a purely disinterested spirit with a view to the attainment of knowledge. But if we hold that know- ledge is a subsidiary part of work, then those scriptural texts which enjoin the non-performance of action cannot be explained in any way. ⁴ Ś, R, Śk, Bh, B.

[sū. 3. 4. 12. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 723 The scriptural text: “What alone one does with knowledge” (Chānd. 1.1 10), referring to the udgītha alone, is “non-universal”, i e. is not concerned with all sorts of knowledge. CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 11 “THE DIVISION (IS) AS IN THE CASE OF A HUNDRED.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: “Knowledge and work lay hold of him” (Bṛh. 4.4.2 ¹), “the division” is to be known just like the division of a hundred (coins) for the sake of a two-fold fruit. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz.: “On account of laying hold of” (Br. Sū. 3.4.5), we reply: In the text: “Knowledge and work lay hold of him” (Bṛh. 4.4.2), a “division” is to be known, viz. knowledge lays hold of him for bringing about its own special result and work for its own special result, “as in the case of a hundred”. That is, just as when for the accomplishment of two purposes it is said: ‘give him a hundred (coins)’, these are divided and fifty are given for one purpose, fifty for the other,—so is the case here. CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 12 “ON THE PART OF ONE WHO HAS ONLY READ THE VEDA.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: “Having studied the Veda in the house of a preceptor” (Chānd. 8.15.1 ²), work is enjoined “on the part of one who has only read the Veda”. ¹ Op. cit. ² Ś, R, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 13. 724 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz "On account of the enjoinment on the part of one having that" (Br Sū. 3 4.6), we reply: In the text: "Having studied the Veda in the house of a pre- ceptor" (Chānd. 8.15.1), work is enjoined "on the part of one who has only read" the Veda, but not on the part of one who possesses know- ledge, so knowledge cannot be taken to be a subsidiary part of work. Though one who has not studied the Pūrva-tantra ¹ may, in accordance with the injunction about the Vedic study, viz. "Let one study the Veda", labour with great care to master the Veda, and though he may attain a little knowledge, yet since he lacks the know- ledge of the real nature of religious duties and the method of perform- ing them, demonstrated in the Pūrva-tantra, he, as dependent on that tantra, comes to have a reading knowledge only of the Veda, but does not know the meaning thereof The meaning of the Veda, on the other hand, according to the author of the Pūrva-tantra, is attainable through an investigation into that tantra But, in our view, even one who after studying the Veda, has come to know the mystery of reli- gious duties and even one who knows everything in a general way, is said to have only read the Veda, since he has not investigated into the Vedānta, designating Brahman, the primary meaning of all the Vedas Work is enjoined in that text on the part of such a one, but not on the part of a knower,—such is the view of the reverend author of the aphorisms. CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 13 “NOT (SO), ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SPECIFICATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And also because the text about restriction does not necessarily refer to the knower. ¹ I.e. the Pūrva-mīmāṁsa.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 14. ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 725 Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection "On account of restriction" (Br. Sū. 3.4 7), we reply It cannot be said on the ground of the text: "Only doing work here" (Īśā 2) that knowledge is a subsidiary part of work. Why? "On account of non-specification," i.e. because the text contains no specification, viz.: 'knowers doing work' and so on. CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 14 "OR THE PERMISSION (OF WORK) IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EULOGY." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The allowing of work to one who knows, viz. "only doing work here" (Īśā 2), is "for the purpose of eulogizing" knowledge. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz Since the text begins with knowledge thus: "By the Lord all this is to be enveloped. Whatever is moving in this moving world, having that renounced, enjoy. Do not covet the wealth of any one" (Īśā 1), it is ascertained that it is specially concerned with the knower,-(the author) says: "The permission," i.e. allowing of, work to a knower is "for the purpose of eulogizing" knowledge. Though doing work so long as he lives, a knower is not touched by karmas,-thus there is an eulogy of knowledge here, in accordance with the concluding text: "Thus, work adheres not to you, to a man, there is no other way than that" (Īśā 2), as well as in accordance with the statement by the Lord. '"Though ever doing all works, one who has resorted to me, attains the eternal and immutable place through my grace"' (Gītā 18.56), '"He who thus knows me is not bound by works"' (Gītā 4.14) and so on.

726 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 15. ADH. 1.] CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 15 "AND SOME (BRANCHES DESIGNATE THAT KNOWERS GIVE UP WORK) ACCORDING TO VOLUNTARY PROCEDURE." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha For this very reason, "some" designate the voluntary giving up of the life of a house-holder by the knowers thus: "'What shall we do with progeny, we whose is this soul, this world?'" (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ¹). Vedānta-kaustubha "Some," i.e. the members of one branch, record the giving up by the knowers of progeny and the rest, involving the performance of action, "according to voluntary procedure", i.e. voluntarily indeed, thus: "Knowing this, forsooth, those ancient ones did not wish for progeny", '"What shall we do with progeny, we whose is this soul, this world?"' (Bṛh. 4.4.22). The sense is that such a giving up of the life of a house-holder fits in if knowledge be not complementary to work, but not if it be so. COMPARISON Baladeva He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (eleven sūtras), concerned with the power of vidyā. He substitutes "Vā" in place of "Ca". Hence the sūtra means: "Or some (hold that a knower of Brahman may act) according to (his) liking". That is, such great is the glory of vidyā that one who has attained vidyā may act just as he likes, or omit to act yet be not subject to consequences, good or bad ². ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ² G.B. 3.4.15, p. 250, Chap. 3.

{SŪ. 3. 4. 16. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 727 CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 16 “AND (THERE IS) THE DESTRUCTION (OF WORK BY KNOWLEDGE)” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha For this very reason texts declare “the destruction” of work by knowledge, thus “And his works perish, when he who is high and low is seen” (Muṇḍ. 2.2.8 ¹). Vedānta-kaustubha “And” texts record “the destruction” of work,—the cause of the three kinds of miseries, and consisting in good and bad deeds,— by knowledge, thus: “The knot of the heart is broken, all doubts are cut off and all his works perish, when he who is high and low is seen” (Muṇḍ. 2.2.8) and so on. There are statements by the Lord too, viz. “‘Him whose works are burnt off by knowledge the wise call a knower’” (Gītā 4 19), “‘The fire of knowledge reduces all works to ashes, O Arjuna!’” (Gītā 4.3.7). COMPARISON Baladeva Interpretation same, but he is of the opinion that even prārabdha- karmas may be destroyed by vidyā.² ¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ² G.B. 3.4.17, pp. 251-252, Chap. 3. “Yadyapi sarvāṇi karmāṇi nirdagdhum vidyā samarthā tathāpi tat-sampradāya-pracārārthaéśvarec chaiva dehārambhakam karma na nirdahati.”

728 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ 3. 4. 17 ADH. 1 ] CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 17 "AND (KNOWLEDGE ARISES) IN ONE WHO IS CHASTE FOR (SUCH A STAGE OF LIFE IS DECLARED) IN SCRIPTURAL TEXT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And" because knowledge is found to arise in those stages of life which are given to chastity, its independence is definitely ascertained. These (stages) are found in the scriptural text "There are three branches of religious duty" (Chānd 2.23.1 ¹). Vedānta-kaustubha Scripture declares that knowledge of Brahman arises even in those stages of life which are given to chastity, i.e. in which the duties of a house-holder are absent; and Scripture does not mention works, like Agni-hotra and the rest in them. This also proves that knowledge is something independent. To the objection, viz. The text: "As long as he lives" contains a reference to works like Agni-hotra and the rest. Like these, those stages of life are not mentioned in the Veda,—we reply: "Because in scriptural text". Those stages of life are mentioned "in scriptural text", i.e. in the Veda, in passages like: "There are three branches of religious duty" (Chānd. 2.23.1), "And those who meditate on faith and austerity in the forest" (Chānd. 5.10.1), "Wishing for the world alone the mendicants wander forth" (Bṛh 4.4.22). Hence there are indeed such stages of life. The scriptural text: "He performs the Agni-hotra sacrifice as long as he lives", on the other hand, refers to those who are attached to wordly life. 1 Ś, R, Bh, Śk

[Sū. 3. 4. 18. ADH 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 729 OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 18) SŪTRA 18 "(THERE IS ONLY) A REFERENCE (TO THOSE STAGES OF LIFE), JAIMINI (THINKS SO), ON ACCOUNT OF THERE BEING NO INJUNC- TION, FOR (SCRIPTURE) CONDEMNS (SUCH STAGES OF LIFE)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: "There are three branches of religious duty" (Chānd. 2.23.1¹), there is only a re-mention of those stages of life, in view of the fact that there is no injunctive word there Also as the text: "He who extinguishes the gods" (Tait. Sam 1.5 2 ²) contains a condemnation of other stages of life, such stages are not to be adopted,—such is the view of "Jaimini". Vedānta-kaustubha The statement that such stages of life are mentioned in scriptural texts and hence they exist,—is not justifiable, since when the section concerned with the injunction about the worship of the Sāman ³ has been fully expounded, Scripture, changing the subject, makes "a reference", i.e. a re-mention simply, in the text: "There are three branches of religious duty" (Chānd. 2.23.1), of those stages of life which are celebrated in Smṛti, with a view to eulogizing a separate meditation on Brahman as the praṇava, that being the subject of discussion; but does not enjoin them. Why? "On account of the absence of any injunctive text." And, scriptural texts like: "He who extinguishes the fire is the slayer of the hero among the gods" (Tait. Saṃ. 1.5.2), "After having brought an acceptable gift to the teacher do not cut off the line of progeny" (Tait. 1.11), "He who is childless does not possess the world" (Ait. Br. 33.1 ⁴) and so on, "condemn" other stages of life. Hence the stage of a house-holder is to be adopted and not other stages,—so the teacher "Jaimini" thinks. 1 Ś., R., Bh., Śk. 2 P. 57, lines 5-6, vol. 1. Ś., R., Bh., Śk. 3 Vide Chānd. 2.22. 4 P. 838, Ānandāśrama sans. series ed.

730 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3 4. 19. ADH. 1 ] COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara They read "acodanā" in place of "acodanāt",¹ and begin a new adhikarana. Interpretation same. Śrīkaṇṭha He too begins a new adhikarana here. Interpretation same. Baladeva He too reads "acodanā" and interprets this sūtra differently thus: "(There is a favourable) reference (to works in Scripture), Jaimini (thinks so), (there is) no injunction (with regard to the giving up of works), because (Scripture) condemns (such a giving up of works)". That is, here the opponent objects to the view that a knower may or may not act at will² by pointing out that even a knower cannot give up all works. All that he is at liberty to do is to perform the obligatory duties at any time he likes unlike ordinary men who must do them at the fixed time only,—but cannot altogether omit them.³ CORRECT CONCLUSION (continued) SŪTRA 19 "(THEY ARE) TO BE ADOPTED, BĀDARĀYAṆA (THINKS SO), ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL MENTION OF EQUALITY." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Since in the text concerned with explanatory re-mention,⁴ the other stage of life is mentioned as equal to the stage of a house- ¹ S.B. 3.4.18, p. 863 ; Bh. B. 3.4.18, p. 204. ² Vide G.B. 3.4.15. ³ G.B. 3.4.18, pp. 254-255, Chap. 3. ⁴ Viz. Chānd. 2.23.1.

[sū. 3. 4. 19 ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 731 holder, the former "is to be adopted",—so the reverend "Bādarāyaṇa" thinks. Vedānta-kaustubha The other stage of life "is to be adopted",—so the reverend "Bādarāyaṇa" thinks Why? "On account of the scriptural mention of equality," i.e. because the other stage of life is mentioned in Scripture as equal to the stage of a house-holder. Thus, in the text: "There are three branches of knowledge, sacrifice, study and charity are the first; austerity alone is the second; a student of sacred knowledge dwelling in the house of a preceptor is the third" (Chānd. 2.23.1) there is an equal inclusion of all the stages of life. Among these, the stage of a house-holder is indicated by the words 'sacrifice, study' and so on. The stage of a religious student is referred to by that very word The stages of a hermit in the forest ¹ and of an ascetic ² are referred to by the word 'austerity'. If those who belong to these stages of life devote themselves to the duties incumbent thereon desiring for enjoyment, then they come to attain a world leading to return, in accordance with the scriptural text: "All these become possessors of meritorious worlds" (Chānd. 2.23.1). But one who knows the truth about the Lord, who is desirous of salvation, who is favoured by the Lord and who is devoted to Him, attains His nature. The concluding text: "One who stands on Brah- man attains immortality" (Chānd 2.23.1) intimates this, in conformity with the statement by the Lord: '"Among thousands of men, scarce one strives for perfection; even among the perfected ones who strive, scarce one knows me in truth"' (Gītā 7.3), '"The worlds up to the world of Brahmā come and go, O Arjuna! But on attaining me, O son of Kuntī, there is no more rebirth"' (Gītā 8.16). COMPARISON Baladeva Here he replies to the opponent thus: "(The obligatory duties) are to be performed, Bādarāyaṇa (thinks so) on account of the scriptural mention of equality". That is, a knower of Brahman may perform the obligatory duties partially just as he likes, but is not

¹ Vāna-prastha. ² Sannyāsa. 17

732 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 20. ADH. 1.] required to perform them exhaustively, like ordinary men. Scripture states that such a partial performance by a knower is equal to a full performance by ordinary men ¹ CORRECT CONCLUSION (end) SŪTRA 20 “OR, (THERE IS) AN INJUNCTION, AS IN THE CASE OF HOLDING.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is indeed “an injunction”. Just as with regard to the enjoined Agni-hotra, it is said in Scripture: “Let him follow holding the sacrificial faggot below (the ladle) He holds it above for the gods” (Āp. Ś.S. 9.11.8-9 ²),—in this text ³ the holding above (of the faggot) by separating (it) is enjoined, since it is something new (not enjoined anywhere)—so is the case here. Vedānta-kaustubha Having thus pointed out that even if we hold that there is (only) a re-mention (of those stages of life and not injunction), still then the other stage of life may be proved to exist, (the author now) points out that in this text there is indeed an injunction with regard to them and not a re-mention. The word “or” implies emphasis In the stated text there is indeed “an injunction” with regard to those stages of life. Appre- hending the objection that the text will cease to be a coherent and un- broken whole if it be admitted that in one and the same text there is an injunction with regard to many stages of life,—(the author) says· “As in the case of holding”. Just as with regard to the enjoined Agni-hotra it is declared by Scripture: “Let him follow holding the ¹ G.B. 3.4.19, p. 255-256, Chap. 3. ² P. 157, vol. 2. The texts read, “Adastāt samidhaṁ dhārayan dakṣiṇena vihāraṁ udravati” (8). “Upari devebhya dhārayati iti vijñāyate” (9). Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ³ Other editions read “vākyaṁ” instead of “vākye”. 17B

[sū. 3. 4. 20. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 733 sacrificial faggot below (the ladle). He holds it above for the gods" (Āp. Ś.S. 9.11.8-9)—here though occurring in the same sentence with the holding of the faggot below the ladle, the holding of the faggot, by separating it, over the clarified butter placed in a ladle is enjoined because of being something new (not enjoined before),¹— so here too. It has been said in the section treating of what is com- plimentary (action): "But (there is) an injunction with regard to the holding, on account of being something new" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 3.4.3²). Although with regard to this stage of life, there is an injunction cele- brated in a text of the Jābāla, viz "Having completed the life of a religious student, let one become a house-holder. Having become a house-holder, let one become a dweller in the forest. Having become a dweller in the forest, let one wander forth. Or else, let one wander forth from the very life of a religious student, or from the house, or from the forest. The day one gets indifferent to the world, let him wander forth on that very day" (Jābāla 4),—yet it is shown by his Holiness that the other stage of life occurs in other texts as well irrespective of that,—this is to be understood here. The texts, viz. "He who extinguishes the fire is the slayer of the hero of the gods" (Tait. Sam. 1.5.2). "After having brought an acceptable gift for the teacher, let him not cut off the line of progeny" (Tait. I. 11), "One who is childless does not possess the world" (Ait. Br. 33.1) and so on, are concerned with people hankering after enjoyment. Hence it is established that the end of men arises from knowledge. Here ends the section entitled "The end of Men" (1). COMPARISON Baladeva He continues here the same topic, viz. whether a knower of Brah- man must work or not. Hence the sūtra: "Or (the text designating ¹ I.e. the above passage may be conceived as a coherent and unbroken whole if we take it to be referring to one thing only, viz the holding of the faggot below. Nevertheless, we conceive it as enjoining the holding of the faggot above too, since this latter is not enjoined anywhere else. ² The sūtra really reads: "Vidhīstu apūrvatvāt syāt".