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

746 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3 4. 28. ADH. 7.] Vedānta-kaustubha It has been stated that calmness and the rest are subsidiary parts of knowledge. Now, wishing to dispose of the objection, viz. like that, the eating of all food, too, is a subsidiary part of knowledge,— the author points out that such eating relates only to cases of life being in danger. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, it is said "Verily, what is not food is not taken by him" (Bṛh 6.1.14); as well as in the Chāndogya · "Verily, to one who knows thus, there is nothing whatever that is not food" (Chānd 5.2.1) Here the doubt is, viz, whether this eating of all food by one who knows the vital-breath is valid, as a subsidiary part of the doctrine of the vital-breath, like calmness and so on, even when one is in a healthy state; or only in the event of danger to life. What is reasonable? If it be suggested: when one is in a healthy state,— we reply: only "in the event of danger to life", there is "permission of all food". Why? "On account of that being seen," i e because in the text: "When the Kurus were destroyed by hail-storm ¹" (Chānd. 1.10 1), the eating of improper food is found to be allowable only in the event of life being in danger. When all food being eaten up by a kind of animals called 'maṭacī' there came to be a famine among the Kurus, then the sage Cākrāyaṇa, seized with hunger, ate the leavings of an elephant-keeper ². From this it is known that the eating of all food is permitted even to one who knows the vital-breath only in the event of danger to life. COMPARISON Baladeva Interpretation same, but he takes this adhikaraṇa as concerned specially with the pariniṣṭha devotee. ¹ Śrīnivāsa, however, understands the word as a kind of crop-destroying animals. See below.

• Vide Chānd. 1.10.1–5 for the story. The sage ate the leavings because he would have died without food, but refused to drink leavings because he could survive without drink.

[Sū. 3. 4. 30. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 747 SŪTRA 29 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF NON-CONTRADICTION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "And on account of the non-contradiction" of the text: "If there be purity of food, there is purity of life" (Chānd. 7.26.2 ¹). Vedānta-kaustubha In the text: "If there be purity of food, there is purity of exist- ence. If there be purity of existence, there is steady remembrance", (Chānd. 7.26.2), the purity of food is enjoined as a means to the rise of knowledge. "On account of the non-contradiction also" of that, it is definitely ascertained, that there is permission of all food only in the event of danger to life. COMPARISON Baladeva Interpretation different, viz. "On account of non-obstruction". Although in ordinary cases the taking of improper food obstructs the full manifestation of knowledge, yet when a knower of Brahman is obliged to do so, it does not obstruct his knowledge.² ―――――――――― SŪTRA 30 "MOREOVER (IT IS) DECLARED BY SMṚTI." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And it is declared by Smṛti too in the passage: "He who being in danger of life eats food from anyone whatsoever is not touched by sin, as a lotus-leaf is not touched by water".³ ―――――――――― ¹ Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. ² G.B. 3.4.29, p. 268, Chap. 3. ³ The first line of the passage is similar to Manu 10.104, last line to Gītā 5.10. Ś, R, Bh, ŚK. 18

[SŪ. 3. 4. 31. 748 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 7.] Vedānta-kaustubha “Moreover,” the eating of all food from anyone whatsoever both by a knower and a non-knower in the event of danger of life “is declared by Smṛti” thus: “He who being in danger of life eats food from anyone whatsoever is not touched by sin, as a lotus-leaf is not touched by water”. COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Baladeva They omit the “Ca”. SŪTRA 31 “AND SO THERE IS A SCRIPTURAL TEXT AS TO NON-PROCEEDING ACCORDING TO LIKING.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha For this very reason, there is “a scriptural text” for prevent- ing wanton acting, viz.: “Hence let not a Brāhmaṇa drink wine” (Kāṭh. Saṃ. 12.12¹). Vedānta-kaustubha As the permission of all food to both who knows and who does not is valid only in the event of life being in danger, “so” the “scrip- tural text” of the Kaṭhas “as to non-proceeding according to liking”, i.e. the text regarding the reverse of acting as one likes, viz. “Hence let not a Brāhmaṇa drink wine” (Kāṭh. Saṃ. 12 12) fits in. The permission of all food to a worshipper of the vital-breath refers to his being in danger of life. The texts not referring to such a danger, on the other hand, are for the purpose of glorifying those particular vidyās, but are not enjoined as subsidiary parts of the doctrine of the vital-breath, like calmness and so on,—this is the resulting meaning. Hence it is established that the eating of all food is allowable only in cases of danger to life. Here ends the section entitled “The permission of all food” (7).

¹ P. 174, last line but four. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. 18B

[SŪ. 3. 4. 32. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 749 Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled "Being enjoined". (Sūtras 32-35) SŪTRA 32 "AND ON ACCOUNT OF BEING ENJOINED, THE WORK INCUMBENT ON THE STAGES OF LIFE TOO" Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Sacrifices and the rest, which are subsidiary parts of knowledge, are to be performed also by one, who does not desire for salvation, as the duties incumbent on one's stages of life, "on account of being enjoined" in the passage: "He performs the Agni-hotra sacrifice as long as he lives".¹ Vedānta-kaustubha Under the aphorism: "And dependence on all, in accordance with the scriptural text about sacrifice" (Br. Sū. 3.4.26) it has been said that works like sacrifices and the rest are subsidiary parts of the knowledge of Brahman. After that, two relevant problems have been considered. Now the question is being considered as to whether, for the sake of gaining prosperity, works like sacrifices and the rest are to be performed even by one, who is not desirous of salvation, as the duties incumbent on one's stages of life. On the doubt, viz. the works, mentioned in the text: "Him the Brāhmaṇas desire to know by the recitation of the Veda, by sacrifice" (Bṛh. 4.4.22) and so on, have been accepted previously as auxiliaries to the means to salvation. Do they incur on the part of one who does not desire for salvation, but wishes to fulfill the duties of his stage of life merely, or not? The prima facie view is that sacrifices and the rest, relating to a definite object, cannot be supposed to be mere duties incumbent on the stages of life, and so they do not incur on his part,— We reply: "The work incumbent on the stages of life too". The works like sacrifice, charity and so on, which are mentioned in Scrip- ture as auxiliaries to knowledge, are "works incumbent on the stages 1 Ś, R, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 4 33. 750 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 8 ] of life too", i e are to be performed even by one, not desirous of salva- tion, as the duties incumbent on his stage of life too. Why? "On account of being enjoined," i e. because in texts like "He performs the Agni-hotra sacrifice as long as he lives" and so on, they are en- joined as merely the works incumbent on the stages of life and to be performed always. The sense is that such works are obligatory on the part of one who carries out only the duties incumbent on his own stage of life, but does not desire for salvation COMPARISON Baladeva He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras) concerned with the svaniṣṭha devotees. Hence the sūtra: "On account of being enjoined, the worked incumbent on the stages of life too (are to be performed by the svaniṣṭha devotee)". That is, even when the devotee has come to acquire knowledge, he must go on performing his duties in order to increase his knowledge ¹ SŪTRA 33 "ALSO BECAUSE OF BEING AUXILIARY." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Since sacrifice and the rest are enjoined "also as auxiliary" to knowledge in the text: "The Brāhmaṇas desire to know by sacri- fice" (Bṛh. 4.4.22 ²), they are to be performed also by one who is desirous of salvation, a double purpose being possible in accordance with the maxim of conjunction and separateness. Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. : If this be so, then sacrifices and the rest cannot be auxiliaries to knowledge,—the author replies : Since sacrifice and the rest are enjoined "also as auxiliary" to knowledge, by way of bringing about its origination, in the passage : ¹ G.B. 3.4.32, p. 271, Chap. 3. ² Ś, R, Bh.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 34. ADH. 8.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 751 "Him the Brāhmaṇas desire to know by sacrifice" (Bṛh. 4.4 22) and so on, works like sacrifice and the rest are to be performed also by one who is desirous of salvation. If it be objected that the same works cannot serve the purpose of a stage of life and that of knowledge,— we reply: that is not so, because even the same works may serve different purposes, in accordance with the maxim: "But with regard to one and the same thing being both, there is conjunction and sepa- rateness" (Pū. Mī. Sū. 4.3.5¹). Just as the same quality of being made of the Khādira-wood is laid down as serving the purpose of sacrifices in the passage: "The sacrificial post is made of the Khādira- wood"; and is, again, laid down as serving the purpose of men in the passage: "For one desiring power, let one make a post of the Khādira- wood", so is the case here. COMPARISON Baladeva Here he continues the topic, viz. that the svaniṣṭha devotee should continue to act even after attaining knowledge. Hence the sūtra: "And (the works must be done by the svaniṣṭha devotee) as being auxiliary (to knowledge)", i. e. with a view to its further increment.² SŪTRA 34 "IN EVERY WAY EVEN, THOSE VERY (SACRIFICES AND THE REST ARE THE SAME) ON ACCOUNT OF A DOUBLE INDICATORY MARK." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "Those very" sacrifices and the rest are to be taken as serving a double purpose, since in both the cases, the works of the same form are recognized. Vedānta-kaustubha The author is proving the non-difference of works. "In every way," i.e. whether taught as duties incumbent on a stage of life or as serving the purpose of knowledge, "those very" ¹ P. 493. ² G.B. 3.2.33, p. 271, Chap. 3.

752 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 35. ADH. 8.] sacrifices and the rest are to be understood. Why? "On account of a double indicatory mark," i.e. because in both the cases works of the same form are recognized. The sense is that sacrifices and the rest, each of the same form indeed, are taught, in both the cases, as duties incumbent on a stage of life, and as auxiliaries to knowledge, by respective texts. COMPARISON Baladeva He begins a new adhikarana here (two sūtras), concerned with the parinistha devotees. The sūtra means according to him, "Under all circumstances even (the pariniṣṭha devotee is to perform his duties of worship and so on), on account of a double mark (viz. Scripture and Smṛti)". That is, the pariniṣṭha devotee should first perform his duties of worship and so on, and do other ordinary duties afterwards.¹ SŪTRA 35 "AND (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS THE NON-OVERPOWERING (OF KNOW- LEDGE)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The scriptural text: "By means of religious observance one re- moves one's sins" (Mahānār. 22.1²) "shows the non-overpowering" of knowledge through the removal of sins—which are the cause of the overpowering of knowledge—by the very same sacrifices and so on, celebrated in Scripture. Vedānta-kaustubha The scriptural text: "For the self which one finds out through the life of a religious student does not perish" (Chānd. 8.5.3³) "shows the non-overpowering" of the knowledge of the self by the duties ¹ G.B. 3.4.34, pp. 274-275, Chap. 3. "Pariniṣṭhitena tena bhagavad- dharmāḥ evānuṣṭheyāḥ. Svadharmās tu kathañ cit gauṇa-Kāle." ² P. 23, last line, reading: "anudanti". ³ Note that Śrīnivāsa understands a different passage here by the term "darśayati".

[sū. 3. 4. 36. ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 753 incumbent on the stages of life, such as, the life of a religious student and so on. The phrase: ‘The self does not perish’ means that the self is not forgotten. Sacrifices and the rest, performed as the mere duties incumbent on the stages of life, lead to the attainment of heaven and so on; those very sacrifices and the rest, performed as auxiliaries to knowledge, give rise to knowledge. Hence there is difference of application, but not difference of works. Hence it is established that the same things are to be performed by both one who is desirous for salvation and one who is not. Here ends the section entitled “Being enjoined” (8). COMPARISON Baladeva He concludes here the topic of the pariniṣṭha devotees. “And (Scripture) shows the non-overpowering (of a pariniṣṭha devotees).” That is, a pariniṣṭha devotee is not overpowered by the fault of not performing the duties incumbent on his own stage of life. He incurs no sins by such an omission.¹ Adhikaraṇa 9: The section entitled “Widower”. (Sūtras 36-39) SŪTRA 36 “BUT (THOSE) ALSO (WHO STAND) BETWEEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT BEING SEEN.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Those “also” who stand “between” the stages of life, are entitled to knowledge, since Raikva and the like are found to be well-grounded in knowledge. ¹ G.B. 3.4.35, pp. 275-276, Chap. 3.

754 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 36. ADH. 9 ] Vedānta-kaustubha It has been stated above that those who belong to one or other of the stages of life are entitled to knowledge, and that the works per- formed by them are auxiliaries to knowledge. Now a discussion is being undertaken with a view to establishing that even those who stand midway are entitled to knowledge and the works done by them also are auxiliaries to knowledge. The doubt is as to whether those who stand ‘between’ the stages of life, such as widowers and so on, are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman or not. The prima facie view is that the knowledge of Brahman depends for its origin on the duties incumbent on the stages of life and since those who stand “between” have no duties incumbent on the special stages of life, they are not so entitled. With regard to it, we reply: “Between”. That is, even those who stand between, i.e. outside, the stages of life are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Why? “On account of that being seen,” i.e. because “that”, viz the right to the knowledge of Brahman, is found in Scripture and Smṛti to be belonging to Raikva, Saṁvarta and so on. The scriptural text indicating that Raikva is entitled to the knowledge of Brahman has been quoted in the first chapter.¹ The details of the story of Saṁvarta, the son of Aṅgiras, may be seen in the Mahā-bhārata in the chapter treating of the horse-sacrifice thus: ‘“O King, Saṁvarta, Aṅgiras’s son, a pious man, roamed about in all directions, sky-clothed (i.e. naked), perplexing all beings” (Mahā. 14. 137 ²) and so on. The purport is this: Religious duties like sacrifices and the rest, auxiliaries to knowledge and mentioned in the scriptural text: “Him” (Bṛh. 4.4.22) and so on, are to be understood, in the case of house-holders, as Agni-hotra and the rest, productive of knowledge and fit for a house-holder who desires for salvation. In the case of those who belong to those stages of life in which chastity is compulsory, the religious duties, incumbent on those stages of life and other than Agnihotra and so on, are to be understood (as productive of know- ledge). Similarly, in the case of those also who do not belong to any stage of life, muttering of prayers, fasting, worship of the deity and so ¹ Vide V.K. 1.3.34. ² P. 278, line 1, vol. 4.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 37 ADH 9 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 755 on, not obligatory to the special stages of life, are to be understood (as productive of knowledge) COMPARISON Baladeva Here he too begins a new adhikaraṇa (three sūtras), but concerned specially with the nirapekṣa devotees only. Literal interpretation same. SŪTRA 37 "MOREOVER, (IT IS) DECLARED IN SMṚTI." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the Smṛti passage, viz. "But through the muttering of prayers alone a Brāhmaṇa may attain success,—there is no doubt about it. Whether he does something else or not, a friendly man is called a Brāhmaṇa" (Manu 2.87 ¹), it is declared that they too may easily attain knowledge through the muttering of prayers and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha In the Smṛti passage: "But through the muttering of prayers alone, a Brāhmaṇa may attain success,—there is no doubt about it. Whether he does something else or not, a friendly man is called a Brāhmaṇa" (Manu 2.87), it is declared that through the muttering of prayers alone even those who do not belong to any stage of life may have success. The sense is that when the mind is purified through the muttering of prayers and so on, knowledge arises. Hence they, too, come to have their ends fulfilled. COMPARISON Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Baladeva They omit the "Ca". Baladeva is here speaking of the nira- pekṣa devotees. 1 P. 46. Ś, R, Śk.

[sū. 3. 4. 39. 756 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 9.] SŪTRA 38 "AND (THERE IS) A SPECIAL FACILITATION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There is "facilitation" of knowledge also through the particular acts of duties performed in a previous life. This is declared by Smṛti too: "'Perfected through many births, he then goes to a supreme goal'" (Gītā 6.45 ¹) Vedānta-kaustubha There is "facilitation" of knowledge through the particular works done in the course of many lives. It is declared by Smṛti too thus: "'Perfected through many lives, he then goes to a supreme goal'" (Gītā 6.45). The sense is that in those cases where there is the presence of knowledge, but the absence of any duties incumbent on the special stages of life,—mentioned above and auxiliaries to knowledge,—other duties incumbent on the stages of life, performed in previous births, are to be inferred. COMPARISON Baladeva He relates this sūtra specially with the nirapekṣa devotees only, thus: "And (the nirapekṣa devotees attain knowledge easily through) the special grace (of the Lord)". SŪTRA 39 "BUT THAN THIS THE OTHER IS BETTER, ON ACCOUNT OF INDICA- TION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Being within a stage of life is "better" than standing midway, also "on account of the indication", viz. "Let one not remain without a stage of life" (D.Sm. 1.10 ²). ¹ Ś, Bh. ² P. 71, line 13. Ś, R, Bh, Śk.

[SŪ. 3. 4 39. ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 757 Vedānta-kaustubha "Than this," i.e. than standing midway, "the other", i.e. being within a stage of life, is "better", since it secures the perfection of the means to knowledge, i.e. is productive of knowledge within a short time. Why? "On account of indication." The scriptural text: "By it goes the knower of Brahman, the doer of meritorious deeds, the shining one" (Bṛh. 4 4.9) shows the going of those belonging to particular stages of life through the path of gods. The meaning of the text is that 'the knower of Brahman', 'the doer of the meritorious deeds', i.e. the doer of the works incumbent on his own stage of life, "by it", i.e. by means of knowledge increased by works, go to Brahman through the path of gods—on account of such a scriptural reference to 'the doer of meritorious deeds' And, there are four stages of life in conformity with the text: "And those who in the forest" (Chānd. 5.10.1). On account of Smṛti passages as well, such as. "Let not a twice-born remain outside the stages of life even for a single day" ¹ (D.Sm. 1.10), "If one stays outside the stages of life for a year, one should undergo penance. The Highest Person, forsooth, the soul of the Universe, is pleased by a person who practises the duties incumbent on his caste and stage of life; nothing else pleases Him", and so on. If, accidentally, it be impossible for one to enter any stage of life, then one may attain salvation through the muttering of prayers, fasting, charity, worship of the deity, non-violence, contentment, straightforwardness, company of the great and so on. Thus says Yājñavalkya: "Being within a stage of life is not the sole impetus to performing religious duties; let a Brāhmaṇa practise them (whether he be within a special stage of life or not). Hence, let no one do to others what is unpalatable to one's own self". It is said in historical legends too: "For what is the use of an āśrama to one who abiding in knowledge is modest, who has the senses under control and who abides in honesty?" For that very reason, it has been said in the Mahā-bhārata that even in the absence of the mark of an āśrama, one should perform religious duties thus: "Even one who is corrupted should perform religious duties. The mark (of an āśrama) is not the cause of religious duties". Hence it is

¹ The text reads "kṣaṇam".

[sū 3 4. 40. 758 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.] established that in spite of the greater excellence of the state of belonging to a stage of life, knowledge may be gained even by those who do not belong to any special stage of life,—such as bachelors, widowers and so on,—through the muttering of prayers and the like. Here ends the section entitled “Widowers” (9) COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara All others add a “ca” at the end. Baladeva He too begins a new adhikarana here (five sūtras), concerned with the question, viz. whether one who belongs to a stage of life is higher or one who does not, and arrives at a conclusion opposite to that of Nimbārka, viz. that one who does not belong to any stage of life is higher. Hence the sūtra: “But than this (i.e. the state of belonging to a particular āśrama) the other (i.e the state of not belonging to any āśrama, viz that of a nirapekṣa devotee) is better, on account of indicatory mark”.¹ Adhikaraṇa 10: The section entitled “One who has become that”. (Sūtras 40–43) SŪTRA 40 “BUT OF ONE WHO HAS BECOME THAT THERE IS NO BECOMING NOT THAT, (THIS IS THE VIEW) OF JAIMINI TOO ON ACCOUNT OF RESTRICTION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF THE FORMS OF THAT.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “But” the giving up of the state of chastity which one has reached is not allowed,—this the view of “Jaimini too”, on account of the ¹ G.B. 3.4.39, p. 281, Chap. 3. “Atah sāśramatvād itran nirāśramatvam eva jyāyaḥ śreṣṭhaṃ vidyā-sādhanam mantavyam ”

[SŪ. 3. 4. 40. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 759 absence of texts, on account of the absence of a cause, on account of the absence of good custom. Vedānta-kaustubha Now the problem is being considered, viz. whether those also who have fallen from the stage of a perpetual religious student bound by chastity and so on are entitled to knowledge or not. It has been established above that there are such stages of life where chastity is obligatory. The doubt is as to whether those who have fallen from these are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, or not. If it be suggested that like widowers and so on, they are so entitled, through the muttering of prayers and so on,— We reply: The word "but" is meant for disposing of the objec- tion. "Of one who has become that," i.e. of one who has reached, as a supreme fruit, the stage where chastity is obligatory, there is "no becoming not that", i.e. no falling off,—this is the view "of Jaimini too". The word "too" indicates that the author’s own view is confirmed through being held by Jaimini as well. The sense is that it being impossible for a perpetual religious student bound by chastity ¹, a hermit belonging to the third religious order ² and a mendicant belonging to the fourth religious order ³ to stay outside a stage of life like widowers and the rest, they cannot be entitled to the knowledge of Brahman The author states the reasons why such a falling off is not allow- able thus: "On account of restriction, on account of the absence of the forms of that", that is, on account of the restriction with regard to the non-deviation from a stage of life, in the passages: A "student of sacred knowledge, dwelling in the house of a teacher, exhausting himself completely in the house of a teacher, is the third" (Chānd. 2.23.1), "One should go to the forest, thence one should not return any more". "Having once given up the fire, one should not return any more" (Kaṭha 5.4). The compound "on account of the absence of the forms of that" is to be explained as follows: The word "that" means 'not becoming that'. The words "the forms" mean scriptural texts. Hence, the clause means: because of the absence of texts indicative of the falling from a stage of life. That means, there are

¹ Naiṣṭhika. ² Vaikhānasa. ³ Parivrājaka.

760 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 4 40. ADH. 10.] no texts negativing the steady adherence to a stage of life. By the plural (in “abhāvebhyaḥ”) other kinds of absence are to be under- stood, viz. on account of the absence of texts indicative of descent (from a higher stage), unlike the texts indicative of ascent (to a higher stage), such as: “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” (Jābāla 4), on account of the absence of any cause for such a falling off; and on account of the absence of good custom. COMPARISON Śaṁkara Reading slightly different, viz. “niyamātad rūpābhāvebhyaḥ”.¹ Bhāskara Reading slightly different, viz. “Jaimini” instead of “Jaimineḥ” ² Baladeva Reading like Śaṁkara’s. Interpretation different, viz. “But one who has become that (viz. a nirapekṣa), there is no becoming not that, (this is the view) of Jaimini too, on account of the restriction (viz. that the senses of the nirapekṣa devotee are devoted to the Lord alone and never to worldly objects), on account of the want of desire (for anything other than Brahman), and on account of the absence (of the life of a house-holder)”. That is, a nirapekṣa devotee never deviates from his vow and enters worldly life.³ ¹ Ś.B. 3.4.40, p. 885 ² Bh. B. 3.4.39, (written as 3.4.40), p. 213. ³ G.B 3.4.40, pp. 283-284, Chap. 3

[sū. 3. 4. 41. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 761 SŪTRA 41 “AND NOT EVEN (THE EXPIATION) TREATED (IN THE SECTION) ABOUT RIGHTS (IS POSSIBLE ON THE PART OF A TRANSGRESSING HERMIT AND THE LIKE), ON ACCOUNT OF ITS INEFFECTIVENESS BY REASON OF THE INFERENCE (I.E. SMṚTI PASSAGE) ABOUT THE FALL.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The expiation, formulated in the section treating of rights,¹ is not possible on the part of a perpetual religious student bound by chastity, “On account of its ineffectiveness” in his case, in conformity with the Smṛti passage: “But the twice-born who having ascended the state of a perpetual religious student bound by chastity deviates therefrom,—I do not see any expiation whereby he, the slayer of himself, may be purified” (Agni 165.23a–24b,² A. Sm. 816 ³) Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. Inadvertence (and not wilful negligence) may be the cause of one’s deviation from the stage of life one has reached; and expiation may entitle such a fallen one to knowledge once more,—the author replies ‘no’. An expiation is mentioned in the text: “A religious student who has deviated from the vow of chastity should sacrifice an ass to Nirṛti”. It is formulated in the sixth chapter, treating of rights, under the aphorism: “The Avakīrṇi-paśu (sacrifice) also (is to be performed like that (viz. the Sthapati-iṣṭi), since the time for the installation of fire has not arrived” (Pū. Mī. Sū. 6.8.22). This is said to be “treated (in the section) about rights”. This is not available for one who has deviated from the vow of a perpetual religious student bound by chastity. Why? “On account of its ineffectiveness by reason of the inference about the fall”, i.e. because in conformity with a Smṛti passage indicating the fall as very difficult to be atoned for, the expiation is not effective for him. The Smṛti passage is as follows: “But the twice-born who having ascended the state of a ¹ Pū. Mī. Sū. 6.8.22. ² Pp. 158-159. Ś, R, Bh, Śk. ³ P. 33, line 19. Reading slightly different, viz. “Yena śuddhyati kar- maṇā”.

[SŪ. 3 4. 42. 762 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 10.] perpetual religious student, bound by chastity, deviates therefrom,— I do not see any expiation whereby he, the slayer of himself, may be purified" (Agni 165.23a-34b, A.Sm. 8.16). The word "even" (in the sūtra) suggests that the stated expiation is valid for a religious student who becomes a house-holder after the completion of his study.¹ COMPARISON Baladeva Interpretation totally different, viz. "and (the nirapekṣa devotee does) not (desire for) even the office (of world-rulership and the like), on account of the inference (i.e. possibility) of fall (from such office), (and) because (he has) no connection with those (offices)", i.e. no wish for them.² OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 42) SŪTRA 42 "BUT PRECEDED BY ‘UPA’, (I.E. A MINOR SIN) EVEN, SOME (THINK SO), (THEY CLAIM) THE EXISTENCE (OF AN EXPIATION FOR IT), AS IN THE CASE OF EATING, THAT HAS BEEN SAID." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "But some" think that the deviation of a perpetual religious student bound by chastity ³ from his vow of chastity is a minor sin, and hence there is an expiation for it, since he too is equally a religious student like one who is a religious student for a time only and not for life ⁴, "as in the case of the taking" of intoxicating liquor. "That has been said :” “ ‘Of the subsequent ones, what is non-contradictory.’ ” ⁵ ¹ I.e. an upakurvāṇa. A naiṣṭhika remains a religious student all his life, but an upakurvāṇa only for a time. ² G.B. 3.4.41, p. 285, Chap. 3. ³ A naiṣṭhika. ⁴ An upakurvāṇa. ⁵ R. Śk.

[sū. 3. 4. 42. ADH 10 ] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 763 Vedanta-kaustubha "Preceded by 'upa'," i e. the deviation of a perpetual religious student and so on, bound by chastity and the rest, from their vow of chastity by going to women and so on, is "preceded by the word 'upa'", i.e is but a minor (upa) sin (pātaka); not a major sin that cannot be atoned for. The word "even" implies reason. "Some" teachers think that they too being equally religious students, there is "the existence" of an expiation for them as for those who are reli- gious students for a time, but not always. "As in the case of eating." Just as the prohibition with regard to the taking of spirituous liquor and so on and the expiation thereof apply equally to those who are religious students for life and those who are so for a time only,—so is the case here. "That has been said" by the Smṛti-writer: "Of the subse- quent ones, what is non-contradictory to that". The sense is that what has been said with regard to one who is a religious student for a time is possible in the case of one who belongs to a subsequent stage of life, viz. one who is religious student for life and so on, in so far as it is not contradictory to the stage of life of the latter. In this way, an expiation for the deviation of perpetual religious students from their vow of chastity being possible, they come to be entitled to knowledge once again Similar is the case with the hermits belong- ing to the third order of life and the wandering mendicants belonging to the fourth order COMPARISON Śaṁkara He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation same. Bhāskara This sūtra is not found in his commentary. Baladeva Interpretation absolutely different, viz. "But what is preceded by 'upa' (i.e. upāsanā or meditation) (is the only object desired by a nirapekṣa devotee) some (branches declare so), (and) the sentiment (of devotion) is like food (to him), that has been said (in Scripture)" ¹. ¹ G.B. 3.4.42, pp. 286-287, Chap. 3. 19

764 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 3. 4. 43. ADH. 10 ] CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtra 43) SŪTRA 43 "BUT (SUCH A TRANSGRESSOR IS) OUTSIDE (THE SPHERE OF KNOW- LEDGE), IN EITHER CASE EVEN, ON ACCOUNT OF SMṚTI AND ON ACCOUNT OF CONDUCT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Whether the deviation of perpetual religious students from their own stage of life be a major or a minor sin, "in either case even", they are "outside" the right to the knowledge of Brahman, "on account of the Smṛti passage: "I do not see any expiation whereby he, the killer of himself, may be purified" (Agni 165.24b ¹) "and on account of the conduct" of the good Vedānta-kaustubha Whether the deviation of those who are bound by chastity from their own stage of life be a major or a minor sin, "in either case even" they are to be kept "outside" ² indeed by the good. Why? "On account of Smṛti and on account of conduct," i.e. on account of the Smṛti passage censuring such a deviation, viz.: "I do not see any expiation whereby he, the killer of himself, may be purified" (Agni 165.24b), "If one sees a Brāhmaṇa who ascended (to a high stage) has fallen (therefrom), one should undergo the Cāndrāyaṇa ³ penance"; and on account of the conduct of the good who always shun one who has deviated from the vow of chastity. Hence it is established that those who have deviated from their stages of life are not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. Here ends the section entitled "One who has become that" (10) ¹ Ś, R, Śk. ² Note that the interpretation of the term "bahiḥ" is different from Nim- bārka's. ³ An expiatory penance regulated by the moon's age. The method is to begin with taking fifteen mouthfuls of food at the full moon, and decrease it daily by one mouthful during the dark-half, and increase by one mouthful again during the bright-half. Vide Manu 6.20 and Kullukabhaṭṭa's commentary. 19B

[sū. 3. 4. 44. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 765 COMPARISON Śaṃkara He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets the work “bahiḥ” like Śrīnivāsa ¹ Bhāskara He omits the word “api” and interprets the word “bahiḥ” like Śrīnivāsa ² This is sūtra 41 in his commentary Baladeva He too omits the word “api” Interpretation absolutely different, viz “(The nirapekṣa devotee is) outside (all worldly entanglements) in both ways, (viz.) on account of Smṛti and on account of conduct” ³ Adhikaraṇa 11: The section entitled “The Lord”. (Sūtras 44-45) OPPONENT'S VIEW (Sūtra 44) SŪTRA 44 “OF THE LORD, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT ABOUT FRUIT, SO ĀTREYA (THINKS).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The meditation based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts is performed by the sacrificer, “so Ātreya” thinks, on account of the scriptural statement about the result attained, viz “What alone one does with knowledge” (Chānd. 1.1.10 ⁴). ¹ Ś.B. 3.4.43, p. 888. ² Bh. B. 3.4 41, (written as 3.4.42), p. 214. ³ G.B. 3.4.43, pp. 287-288, Chap. 3. ⁴ Not quoted by others.