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

Page Transcription (Line-by-Line)

[sū. 3. 4. 47 ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 771 Vedānta-kaustubha It may be objected: If the religious duties like sacrifice, charity, austerity, calmness, self-control and the like, as well as those called hearing, thinking and meditating,—duties that are to be performed by men of all stages of life who desire for salvation,—be auxiliaries to knowledge; and if knowledge, attainable through them and common to men of all stages of life, be the means to salvation, then there cannot be any justification for "concluding with the house-holder" in the Chāndogya-text, which beginning: "Having studied the Veda in the house of a teacher in accordance with rules, in time left over from doing work for the teacher; having returned to his own house, studying his sacred texts in a clean spot" (Chānd. 8.15.1), concludes: "Forsooth, having stayed thus as long as he lives, he reaches the world of Brahman and does not return any more" (Chānd. 8 15 1). Hence, such a conclusion clearly indicates that there are no other stages of life ¹. To this the author replies here. The word "but" is meant for disposing of the objection. That is, simply because the stage of a house-holder has been mentioned at the end, it is not to be thought that there are no stages of life other than that. "On account of the existence of all" religious duties therein, "the concluding with the house-holder" is meant for exhibit- ing all religious duties. COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha The phrase compound "kṛtsna-bhāvāt" interpreted differently, viz. 'on account of the existence (of knowledge) in all (the stages of life)'.² Śrīkaṇṭha takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself. Baladeva He too takes it as an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation same.

¹ Vide the same objection raised on another ground in Br. Sū. 3.4.18. ² Śrī. B. 3.4.47, p. 394, part 2; Śk. B. 3.4.47, pp. 411-412, Parts 10 and 11

संस्कृत मूल एवं हिन्दी अनुवाद (Unicode Devanagari)

॥ ब्रह्मसूत्रम् ३.४.४७ ॥ कृत्स्नभावात्तु गृहिणोपसंहारः ॥ ४७ ॥ वेदान्तकौस्तुभः (श्रीश्रीनिवासाचार्यकृतः) पूर्वपक्षः — ननु यज्ञादीनि शमदमादीनि श्रवणादीनि च मुमुक्षूणां सर्वेषामाश्रमिणां धर्मा विद्याङ्गं भवन्ति, तन्निर्वर्त्यविद्या च सर्वाश्रमसाधारणी मुक्तिसाधनं चेत्, तर्हि छान्दोग्ये उपसंहारे गृहिण एव परिग्रहः कुतो न्याय्यः? यथा हि श्रूयते— «आचार्यात् कुलं वेदमधीत्य यथाविधानं गुरोः कर्मातिशेषेणाभिसमावृत्य कुटुम्बे शुचौ देशे स्वाध्यायमधीयानो... स खल्वेवं वर्तयन्यावदायुषं ब्रह्मलोकमभिसम्पद्यते न च पुनरावर्तते न च पुनरावर्तते» (छा० उप० ८.१५.१) इति। अनेन गृहिणैवोपसंहाराद् आश्रमान्तरं नास्तीति गम्यते। सिद्धान्तः — अत्र तु-शब्देन पूर्वपक्षं व्यावर्तयति। न ह्युपसंहारमात्रेणाश्रमान्तराभाव आशङ्कनीयः। यतः गार्हस्थ्ये सर्वधर्माणां ‘कृत्स्नभावात्’—सर्वेषामेवाश्रमाणां धर्माणां न्यूनाधिकभावेन गृहाश्रमेऽन्तर्भावात् सर्वधर्मप्रदर्शनाय गृहिणोपसंहारः कृतः। हिन्दी अनुवाद: आक्षेप (पूर्वपक्ष): यदि यज्ञ, दान, तप, शम, दम तथा श्रवण, मनन एवं निदिध्यासन आदि सभी आश्रमों के मुमुक्षुओं द्वारा अनुष्ठेय धर्म विद्या के अङ्ग हैं, और उनके द्वारा निष्पन्न विद्या सभी आश्रमों के लिए समान रूप से मुक्ति का साधन है, तो छान्दोग्योपनिषद् के उपसंहार में केवल गृहस्थ का ही उल्लेख क्यों किया गया? इससे प्रतीत होता है कि गार्हस्थ्य के अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई आश्रम नहीं है। समाधान (सिद्धान्त): सूत्रस्थ 'तु' शब्द इस पूर्वपक्ष के निराकरणार्थ है। केवल अन्त में गृहस्थ का वर्णन होने से अन्य आश्रमों का अभाव सिद्ध नहीं होता। 'कृत्स्नभावात्' अर्थात् गृहस्थाश्रम में सभी धर्मों (अहिंसा, दम, अध्ययन आदि) का समावेश होने के कारण समस्त आश्रम-धर्मों के उपलक्षण (प्रदर्शन) के लिए गृहस्थ के साथ ग्रन्थ का उपसंहार किया गया है।

[SŪ. 3. 4. 48. 772 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 12] SŪTRA 48 “AS IN THE CASE OF ASCETICISM, ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF OTHERS AS WELL ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the very same manner, the teaching of asceticism in that text is meant for exhibiting all religious duties, since like the teaching of asceticism, there is the teaching of the duties incumbent on all stages of life in the text: “There are three branches of religious duty” (Chānd 2.23.1 ¹) Vedānta-kaustubha The author points out that similarly here too the teaching of asceticism in the passage. “Then an ascetic” (Bṛh. 3.5.1), preceded by that of the life of a mendicant: “Then they live the life of mendi- cants” (Bṛh. 3.5.1), is meant for exhibiting the religious duties in- cumbent on all stages of life. Thus, here too, the teaching of asceticism, preceded by that of the life of a mendicant, in the passage: “The Brāhmaṇas, having risen above the desires for sons, desires for wealth, desires for worlds, live the life of mendicants” (Bṛh. 3.5.1), is meant for exhibiting the religious duties incumbent on all the stages of life. Why ? “As in the case of asceticism,” i.e. because like the teaching of asceticism, there is the “teaching of other” stages of life too in the passage: “There are three branches of religious duty. Sacrifice, study and charity are the first; austerity alone is the second; a student of sacred knowledge living in the house of a preceptor and exhausting himself completely in the house of a teacher is the third. All these become possessors of meritorious worlds. One who stands on Brahman goes to immortality” (Chānd. 2.23.1) and so on. Hence it is estab- lished that the states of learning, childhood and asceticism are en- joined here. Here ends the section entitled “The injunction of another auxiliary” (12). ¹ Ś, R, B.

{SŪ. 3. 4. 49 ADH. 13.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 773 COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. whether those who practise the vow of Pāśupata and do not belong to any particular stage of life are entitled to salvation. The answer is that they are entitled. Hence the sūtra: "On account of the teaching of others too (viz. calmness and the like, etc.) like, asceticism". That is, asceticism, as well as calmness, self-control and the rest, which have been designated as auxiliaries to knowledge, the means to salvation, are enjoined in connection with the vow called Pāśūpata as well. Hence it follows that those who practise this vow, automatically practise asceticism and the rest, gain knowledge thereby, and attain salvation through it.¹ Adhikaraṇa 13: The section entitled "Non- manifestation". (Sūtra 49) SŪTRA 49 "NON-MANIFESTING, ON ACCOUNT OF CONNECTION." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Without manifesting one's own greatness and so on, due to learning, let one remain in the childlike state, i.e. without pride, since it is possible for this alone to have a "connection" with the topic. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been established that in the text: "Hence let a Brāhmaṇa, being disgusted with learning desire to stay in the childlike state; being disgusted with the childlike state and learning, then he becomes an ascetic" (Bṛh. 3.5.1), asceticism too is something to be enjoined. Now the meaning of the phrase 'childlike state' is being considered. 1 Śk. B. 3.4.48, pp. 413-414, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 3 4. 49. 774 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 13.] The doubt is whether the action of a child, i.e. nothing but wilful behaviour, is meant by the phrase 'childlike state', and that is to be practised by one desirous of salvation; or whether freedom from arrogance, pride, self-consciousness and so on are denoted by the phrase 'childlike state' here, and these are to be practised by one desirous of salvation. If it be suggested that 'childlike state' means the state of a child, i e. nothing but wilful behaviour, that is to be practised by one desirous of salvation, there being no reason for the restriction that only freedom from arrogance and the rest are to be practised and not simply wilful behaviour,— We reply: "Without manifesting" one's wisdom, generated through hearing and so on, one should desire to stay in the childlike state, i.e. be free from arrogance and the rest. Why? "On account of connection," i.e. because the state of freedom from arrogance and so on alone can have any "connection" with the topic of discussion, while wilful behaviour can have no connection whatsoever with it, in accordance with the scriptural text: "Not one who has not refrained from bad conduct, not one who is not tranquil, not one who is not composed, not one who is not of peaceful mind, can obtain Him even through intelligence" (Katha 2.24). Hence it is established that one desirous of salvation should have 'childlike state', i.e freedom from arrogance and the like. Here ends the section entitled "Non-manifestation" (13). COMPARISON Śrīkaṇṭha Here he concludes the topic, viz. whether those who practise the vow called Pāśupata are entitled to salvation or not. The prima facie view is that since such people do not belong to any stage of life, they are not so entitled. The answer is: "(Although the Pāśupata- āśrama) does not manifest itself, (i.e. is not, a particular āśrama, yet) owing to (its) connection (with all the requisites of the stage of asceticism, such as, chastity and so on, it is called an 'atyāśrama' or super-āśrama, and is the cause of salvation)"'.¹ ¹ Śk. B. 3.4.49, pp. 415-416, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 50 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 775 ADH. 14.] Baladeva He, like Nimbārka, takes this sūtra (sūtra 50 in his commentary) as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, but dealing with an entirely different topic, viz. the keeping of knowledge as secret. Hence the sūtra: "(Let one remain) without manifesting (i.e. revealing the knowledge attained), on account of connection (i.e. tradition)". That is, when a preceptor teaches his disciple, he should ask the disciple to keep what he has learnt a strict secret, for such is the tradition ¹. Adhikaraṇa 14: The section entitled "In this life" (Sūtra 50) SŪTRA 50 "(THERE IS THE RISE OF KNOWLEDGE) IN THIS LIFE IF OBSTRUC- TION BE NOT PRESENT, ON ACCOUNT OF THAT BEING SEEN." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "If obstruction" be non-existent, then there is rise of knowledge "in this life"; if it be present, in the next, "on account of that being declared" by the text: "Then Naciketas, having obtained the know- ledge declared by Death" (Kaṭha 6.18 ²) and so on Vedānta-kaustubha Having stated the multitude of means that lead to the rise of knowledge, the author is now considering its time. On the doubt, viz. whether through the means, demonstrated in the group of aphorisms ending with "Non-manifesting, on account of connection" (Br. Sū. 3.4.49), knowledge arises in this life or in the next,—the prima facie view is that in accordance with the scriptural text: "Let one desirous of salvation perform sacrifices" (Tait. Saṁ. 2.5.5 ³) and so on, people strive for only prosperity ¹ G.B. 3.4.50, pp. 299-300, Chap. 3. ² B. ³ P. 208, line 27. vol. 2.

776 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [sū. 3. 4. 50 ADH. 14.] in the next life, but not for the rise of knowledge, knowledge being possible in this very life With regard to it, we reply: “If obstruction”, i.e. if the obstruc- tion to knowledge, viz works which are dependent on particular place and time and are about to produce results other than knowledge, “be not present” That is, if the group of means which lead to knowledge be performed well, there is the rise of knowledge “in this life”; if any obstruction to such works be present, then in the next. Why ? “On account of that being seen,” i.e. because the rise of knowledge is found to take place in both ways. That in the absence of any obstruction, there is the rise of knowledge in this life is declared by the text: “Then Naciketas, having attained the knowledge declared by Death and this rule ¹ of the Yoga entirely, attained Brahman and became stainless, deathless” (Kaṭha 6.18). That through the means, practised in one life, there is the rise of knowledge in another life is declared by the text: “Even when in the womb, Vāmadeva perceived”. If there be a large number of obstructions, the attain- ment of knowledge is indeed very difficult, in accordance with the scriptural text. “He whom many, though hearing, know not” (Kaṭha 2.7). Hence it is established that the rise of knowledge takes place on the removal of obstructions. There is no fixed rule that knowledge arises in that very life in which the means were performed. Here ends the section entitled “In this life” (14) COMPARISON Śaṁkara He reads: “Aihikam api aprastuta-pratibandhe....” ². Inter- pretation same. This is sūtra 51 in his commentary. Rāmānuja He reads: “Aihikama aprastuta-pratibandhe....”. Interpreta- tion of the word “aihikam” different, viz. “What belongs to this ¹ Our text reads “yoga-siddhi”—a mis-quotation. Correct one “Yoga- vidhi”. Vide Kaṣha, p. 120. ² Ś.B. 3.4.51, p. 894.

[sū. 3. 4. 50. ADH. 14.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 777 world (i.e. meditation aiming at worldly prosperity)". That is, there are two kinds of meditation, viz. that which aims at worldly prosperity only ("aihikam") and that which aims at final release The former may or may not arise in this life according to the absence or presence of obstruction ¹, and similarly there is no fixed rule with regard to the latter also as will be shown in the next sūtra. Bhāskara He reads: "Aihikam aprasutam pratibandhena darśānat" Accord- ingly the sūtra means: "(There is the rise of knowledge) in this life, (if the works which obstruct it have) not sprung up, through (the presence of such an) obstruction (however, there is the rise of know- ledge in the next world), because (that) is seen".² Thus, the import is the same as Nimbārka's This is sūtra 48 in his commentary Śrīkaṇṭha His reading of the sūtra is like Rāmānuja's reading. Interpreta- tion different, i.e. he is here speaking of the time of the rise of salva- tion and not of knowledge. Nimbārka speaks of this in the next sūtra. Śrīkaṇṭha interprets the sūtra thus. "(The result of medita- tion, viz. salvation, arises) in this life (i.e. as soon as the present body ceases), if obstruction be not present, on account of that being seen". That is, if there be no contrary karmas, then a knower attains release as soon as he dies. But it there be such karmas, he has to be re-born and exhaust them before he can attain release. Hence it is that even knowers like Vāmadeva are seen to have re-births ³. Baladeva His reading too is like Rāmānuja's reading Interpretation same. ¹ Śrī. B. 3.4.50, p. 398, Part 2. ² Bh. B. 3.4 48, (written as 3.4.49), p. 216. ³ Śk. B. 3.4.50, pp. 416-418, Parts 10 and 11.

778 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [sū. 3. 4. 51. ADH. 15 ] Adhikaraṇa 15 · The section entitled "The fruit, viz. salvation" (Sūtra 51) SŪTRA 51 "SIMILARLY, (THERE IS) NON-RESTRICTION WITH REGARD TO THE FRUIT, VIZ. SALVATION, ON ACCOUNT OF ONE HAVING THAT STATE BEING ASCERTAINED, ON ACCOUNT OF ONE HAVING THAT STATE BEING ASCERTAINED." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Likewise, there is "non-restriction with regard to the fruit, viz. salvation", in accordance with the statement: "For him there is delay so long" (Chānd. 6.14.2 ¹). Here ends the fourth quarter of the third chapter in the Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka- mīmāṁsā texts by the reverend Nimbārka. Vedānta-kaustubha The question as to when a seeker attains knowledge, whether here or hereafter, has been considered above. Now, the question as to when one who has attained knowledge and is a seeker of salvation attains salvation is being considered. The doubt is as to whether or not there is any universal rule that the fruit of knowledge, viz. salvation, arises only after the knower is freed from the body in which he has attained knowledge. The prima facie view is as follows:— As soon as the means are accomplished, the fruit may be attained at that very moment; hence the fruit arises immediately after he is freed from the body. With regard to it, we reply: "There is non-restriction with regard to the fruit, viz. salvation". That is, just as there is non-restriction or no universal rule with regard to the rise of knowledge,—viz. in the absence of obstructions, there is the rise of knowledge here; in their presence elsewhere,—"so" there is "non-restriction" with regard to the fruit of knowledge, viz. "salvation", belonging to one who ¹ B.

[SŪ. 3. 4. 51. ADH. 15.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 779 has attained knowledge If the works which have begun to bear fruits be absent, then the fruit of knowledge, viz. salvation, belonging to the knower, arises after he is freed from the present body; but if they be present, then after he is freed from still another body,—thus there is no fixed rule here. Why? “On account of one having that state being ascertained,” i.e. because the Chāndogya text: “For him there is delay only so long as I am (i e. he is) not free, then I shall (i e. he will)¹ attain (Brahman)” (Chānd 6.14.2) speaks of “one having that state”, i.e. one having the state of a knower, or, one by whom knowledge has been obtained. Hence it is established that there is no fixed rule with regard to the fruit, viz. salvation. The repetition of the last words indicates the completion of the chapter Here ends the section entitled “The fruit, viz. salvation” (15). Here ends the fourth quarter of the third chapter in the Vedānta- kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of the reverend Nimbārka, the founder and the teacher of the sect of the holy Sanatkumāra. And this third chapter, entitled “The means”, concerned with the discussion about the knowledge of Brahman, is completed. COMPARISON Śaṁkara Interpretation different, viz. “Similarly, (there is) no fixed rule with regard to the fruit, viz. salvation, on account of such a state being ascertained (to be Brahman)”. That is, the result of know- ledge is not subject to the same rule as the origin of knowledge. The latter may vary, i.e. take place here or hereafter; but the former is not subject to any variations, but is the same always, since Scripture declares salvation to be Brahman, the UNCHANGEABLE.² Rāmānuja Interpretation same. He points out that just as there is no fixed rule with regard to the rise of the fruit of that kind of meditation ¹ See V.K. 1.1.7. ² Ś.B. 3.4.51, pp. 896 ff. 20

[SŪ. 3. 4. 51. 780 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 15.] which aims at worldly prosperity (considered in the previous sūtra), so there is no fixed rule with regard to the rise of the fruit of that of meditation which aims at salvation.¹ Bhāskara He interprets the first part, viz. “muktiphalāniyamaḥ” like Nimbārka, the second part, viz “tadavasthāvadhṛteḥ” like Śaṁkara Thus, according to him the sūtra means: although there is no fixed rule as to whether salvation is to arise here or hereafter, yet there is no non-fixity in the very nature of salvation, for salvation is nothing but the state of the Highest Lord.² Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation different, viz. “(There is) no fixed rule that the fruit, viz. salvation (has grades like the fruit of karma) since (salva- tion) is ascertained to be that condition (viz. the state of Brahman)”. That is, salvation means attaining similarity with the Lord; hence the Lord being the same, salvation does not vary, though there may be gradations in the meditations.³ Résumé The fourth quarter of the third chapter contains: (1) 51 sūtras and 15 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka; (2) 52 sūtras and 17 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṁkara; (3) 51 sūtras and 15 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja; (4) 49 sūtras and 16 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara; (5) 51 sūtras and 17 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha; (6) 52 sūtras and 16 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva. Sūtra 46 in the commentaries of Śaṁkara and Baladeva is not found in Nimbārka’s commentary. Bhāskara takes sūtras 23 and 24 in Nimbārka’s commentary as forming a single sūtra, and omits sūtra 42.

¹ Śrī. B. 3.4.51, p. 399, Part 2. ² Bh. B. 3.4.49, (written as 3.4.50), p. 217. ³ Śk. B. 3.4.51, pp. 418-419, Parts 10 and 11. 20B

FOURTH CHAPTER (Adhyāya) FIRST QUARTER (Pāda) Adhikarana 1: The section entitled "Repeti- tion". (Sūtras 1-2) SŪTRA 1 "REPETITION MORE THAN ONCE, ON ACCOUNT OF TEACHING." The interpretation of the Brahma-sūtras, entitled Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, composed by the reverend Nimbārka There must be "repetition" of the means "more than once", "on account of the teaching" of the means that lead to a direct vision of Brahman, viz. "Should be heard, should be thought, should be meditated on" (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6¹). The Commentary, the holy Vedānta-kaustubha, composed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa. In the third chapter, the nature of the means were determined. Now, in this fourth chapter, that of the fruit or the result is being determined. Thus, in the first quarter, it will be established that the attainment of the fruit results straight on through the steady practice of the means. With a view to this, the means are to be repeated till death. Further, it will be clearly shown that a knower, having Brahman for his soul, attains salvation through the might of his knowledge, the cause of the cessation of the prior and subsequent works. It will also be proved that the end, viz. Brahman, is attained when there is a complete exhaustion of works, which have begun to bear fruits, by retributive experiences. In the second quarter, problems like the departure of a knower from the body and so on will be considered. In the third quarter, those of his going through the path beginning with light will be discussed. In the fourth quarter, the real nature and attributes of one, who has attained Brahman and has his real nature manifest, will be determined. Now, first of all, the author points out that the means are to be practised more than once. ¹ Ś, R, Bh. ( 781 )

[SŪ. 4. 1. 1. 782 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 1.] The doubt is as to whether the means leading to a direct vision of Brahman, mentioned in scriptural texts like: "‘ "O ! the self is to be seen, to be heard, to be thought, to be meditated on. ‘It is to be sought for, it is to be enquired into’ " ’ (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6), "Knowing him alone, one passes beyond death, there is no other way to salvation" (Śvet. 3.8, 6.15), "The knower of Brahmar attains the highest" (Tait. 2.1) and so on, are to be practised once, or are to be repeated more than once. With regard to it, the prima facie view is that they are to be performed once, there being no evidence for a repetition more than once. With regard to this, we reply: "Repetition", i.e. there must be a repetition, more than once, of the means leading to a direct vision of Brahman. Why? "On account of teaching," i.e. on account of the teaching of meditation, the means to a direct vision of Brahman, which teaching is preceded by that of hearing of and reflecting on the scriptural texts. The purport is this: The real knowledge of the meaning of texts cannot be attained, through a mere hearing of the scriptural texts only once, even on the part of men like Śvetaketu, the meaning of the Vedānta-texts being very difficult to be under- stood; otherwise, the repetition of the text: "Thou art that" (Chānd. 6.8.7, etc. 1) would have been meaningless. For this very reason, texts like: "Whom they do not know, though hearing" (Kaṭha 2.7 2) and so on are not without meaning. For this very reason, considering that no understanding of the meaning of the Vedānta-texts is possible through a mere hearing of those texts in accordance with the injunc- tion about Vedic study, His Holiness composed this treatise. Thus, in the text: "‘ "O ! the self is to be seen’ " ’ (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6) the teaching: 'to be heard', aiming at a direct vision of Brahman, indicates that there is hearing more than once. If the direct vision of Brahman be attainable through a mere hearing of the scriptural texts about Brahman, celebrated in the passages: "From whom, verily, all these beings arise" (Tait. 3.1), "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait. 2.1) and so on, then the teaching "should be heard" (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6) becomes futile. Exactly similar is the teaching: "Should be thought" (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6), i.e. the teaching about thinking which means 1 Repeated nine times. Vide Chānd. 6.8.7 ff. 2 Correct quotation: "Śṛṇvanto' pi vahavo yaṃ na vidyuḥ". Vide Kaṭha, pp. 35-36.

[sū. 4. 1. 2. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 783 constantly reflecting on Reality. After that there is the teaching about meditation, viz. “Should be meditated on” (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5 6), i.e. the teaching of meditation, which means an unbroken perception of Brahman, the object of hearing and thinking, and is the special cause of a direct vision of Him. On account of such a teaching, when the meditation on Brahman is practised more than once, then alone there is, through Brahman’s grace, a direct vision of Him, in accordance with the scriptural text: “But then he, meditating, sees him who is without part” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8). COMPARISON Śaṁkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva They all connect the word “asakṛt” (more than one) with the word “updeśāt” and not with the word “āvṛtti”. That is, according to them, the means are to be repeated because Scripture teaches them more than once, i.e. repeatedly.¹ SŪTRA 2 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF INFERENTIAL MARK.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha And on account of the Smṛti passage: “‘By force of practice, desire to attain me, O Dhanañjaya’” (Gītā 12.9 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha An inferential mark means Smṛti. There are Smṛti passages to this effect, such as “‘But through repetition O son of Kuntī!’” (Gītā 6.35), “‘Desire to attain me, O Dhanañjaya’” (Gītā 12.9), “Viṣṇu is to be remembered always, and should never be forgotten. Let all injunctions and prohibitions be subordinate to these two” 1 Ś.B. 4.1.1, p. 900, Bh. B 4.1.1, p. 218, G.B. 4.1.1. 2 Correct quotation: “abhyāsa-yogena”. Not quoted by others.

784 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 3. ADH. 2] and so on. Hence it is established that the means to a direct vision of Brahman are to be repeated more than once. Here ends the section entitled “Repetition” (1). COMPARISON Baladeva He omits the “ca”. Adhikaraṇa 2. The section entitled “Medita- tion under the aspect of Self”. (Sūtra 3) SŪTRA 3 “BUT ‘THE SELF’—SO (THEY ADMIT AND MAKE OTHERS) UNDER- STAND” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “This is my self” (Chānd. 3.14 3, 4¹)—so the previous teachers “admit” “This is your self” (Bṛh. 3 4.1, etc.²), so they teach the disciples. Hence the Highest Person is to be meditated on by one desirous of salvation as one’s own self. Vedānta-kaustubha In the immediately adjoining section, it has been shown that the means are to be practised more than once. This suggests an absolute difference between the knower and the object known. Now we hasten to remove this misconception. The doubt is as to whether the object to be known, viz. Brahman, is to be meditated on as different from the knower or as the self of the knower? With regard to it, the prima facie view is: As different. Why? For the following reasons: First, the self, being within the range of the perception of the ‘I’, is easily knowable. Secondly, the means are, on the contrary, enjoined to be repeated more than once ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ Ś. 2 Ś. R. Bh.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 3. ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 785 for knowing the self in question. Thirdly, there are a great many scriptural and Smṛti texts as well as aphorisms teaching a fundamental difference between Brahman and the individual soul like: "And on account of the designation of difference" (Br. Sū 1 1.18), "But something more, on account of the indication of difference" (Br Sū. 2 1.21) and so on In this way, such a difference between Brahman and the individual soul being established by the direct evidence of one’s own realization, as well as by Scripture, no other supposition is to be made, in accordance with the condemnatory statement: "He who supposes the self to be otherwise than what it really is,—what sin is not committed by him, the thief, the stealer of his own self?" With regard to it, we reply: "But 'the self'—so (they) admit", since the Highest self is the whole of which the individual self is a part and since the former is the very soul of the latter, which can have no existence and activity independently of Him, just as the thousand-rayed sun, having independent existence and activity in contrast to its own rays, is their soul, and the rays are non-different from it. Similarly, the Lord should be known to be non-different from the individual souls. The word "but" indicates clearly the difference in nature between the individual soul and the Highest self, the non-knowing and the all- knowing. The relation of identity is possible between two things when they are non-different in some way or other. No identity is possible between a cow and a horse. Again, identity is not possible in the case of a single horse also. But there is a relation of identity between the effect and its cause, the attribute and its substratum, the power and its possessor,—i.e only between two things which are both different and non-different. Otherwise, in accordance with the text: "All this, verily, is Brahman" (Chānd. 3.14.1), the universe, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, must be non-different from Brahman in nature, which is impossible. Hence, the Lord is the soul of the meditating devotee,—a part of Brahman and different, indeed, from Him in nature,—as the tree is of the leaf, the substratum of light of light, the chief vital-breath of the sense-organs. Hence, both difference and non-difference are equally fundamental and natural. Thus, alone, texts like: "Thou art me, O lord Deity! I am 'Thou'" and so on can have a meaning. For this very reason, again, the non-difference of the individual soul from Brahman being established,—as of the leaf from the tree, light

786 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 4. ADH. 3.] from its substratum,—texts like: "He who worships another deity, (thinking:) 'The Deity is one, I arother', does not know, like a beast" (Bṛh. 1.4.10) and so on, too, fit in. Since between Brahman and the individual soul there is a non-difference of this kind which is not in conflict with difference, there is no contradiction of scriptural and Smṛti passages and aphorisms like: "The conscious among the conscious" (Kaṭha 5.13; Śvet. 6.13), "'And I am superior to the imperishable as well'" (Gītā 15.18), "But on account of the teaching of something more" (Br. Sū. 3.4.8), "Not the other, on account of inappropriate- ness" (Br. Sū 1.1.17) and so on, the relation of difference-non- difference between the two being approved by all Scriptures. Hence "This is my self" (Chānd. 3.14.3, 4), "This is the inter soul of all beings" (Muṇḍ. 2.1.14),—so the previous teachers admit "This is your soul, within all" (Bṛh 3.4 1, 2; 3.5.1), "This is your self, the inner controller, immortal" (Bṛh. 3.7.3, etc.), "'All this has that for its soul . . . Thou art that'" (Chānd. 6.8.7) and so on,—so they teach their disciples the very same thing. In accordance with the Smṛti passage as well, viz. "'I am the soul, O thick-haired one! dwelling within the heart of all beings'" (Gītā 10.20), "'Know me also as the knower of the field'" ¹ (Gītā. 13.2), it is established that the Highest Person is to be meditated or as one's own self. Here ends the section entitled "Meditation under the aspect of self" (2). Adhikaraṇa 3: The section entitled "The Sym- bol". (Sūtras 4-5) SŪTRA 4 "NOT IN A SYMBOL, FOR THAT (IS) NOT (THE SELF)." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha But the self is not to be sought for "in a symbol"; "that" is "not" the self of the meditating devotee. ¹ I.e. the individual soul, the knower of the body.

[sū. 4. 1. 5. adh. 3.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 787 Vedānta-kaustubha Now the author points out that similarly, the self is not to be sought for in a symbol. With regard to the meditations on symbols, such as, "Let one meditate on the mind as Brahman" (Chānd. 3.18.1), "He who medi- tates on name as Brahman" (Chānd 7 1.5) and so on, the doubt is as to whether the self is to be sought for in symbols or not. What is reasonable, to begin with? If it be suggested: It is to be done so indeed, symbolic meditations too being equally meditations on Brahman. We reply: The self is not to be sought for "in a symbol", since "that", i.e. the symbol, is not the soul of the meditating devotee, seeing that symbols like the mind and the rest are to be meditated on under the aspect of Brahman. COMPARISON Śaṁkara The interpretation of the clause: 'na hi sah" different, viz. "for he (i.e. the meditating devotee) does not (look upon the symbol as his self)".¹ Baladeva He omits the word "sah".² Bhāskara He omits the first "na" ³ SŪTRA 5 "THE VIEW OF BRAHMAN, ON ACCOUNT OF SUPERIORITY." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The viewing of the mind and the rest as Brahman is indeed proper, but not the viewing of Brahman as the mind and the rest, "on account of the superiority" of Brahman. 1 Ś.B. 4.1.4, p. 908. ² Bh. B. 4.1.4, p. 221. 3 G.B. 4.1.4, p. 4, Chap. 4.

788 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 6. ADH. 4.] Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. In the above cases, let Brahman alone be the object to be meditated on, viewed as the mind and so on,—the author replies: The mind, name and so on are to be viewed as Brahman. Why? “On account of superiority,” i.e. on account of Brahman’s superiority to the mind, name and the rest. But Brahman is not to be viewed as the mind, name and the rest. Just as to view a minister as the king is proper, but not the king as a minister, so is the case here. Hence it is established that the self is not to be sought for in a symbol. Here ends the section entitled “The Symbol” (3). COMPARISON Baladeva He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. “The view of Brahman (is to be super-imposed upon the Lord), on account of superiority (of such a meditation)”. That is, just as the Lord is to be meditated on as the self of the devotee, so He is to be meditated on as Brahman as well, i.e as possessed of great attributes and powers, since such a meditation is the highest of all.¹ Adhikaraṇa 4: The section entitled “The ideas of the sun and the rest”. (Sūtra 6) SŪTRA 6 “AND THE IDEAS OF THE SUN AND THE REST (ARE TO BE SUPER- IMPOSED) ON THE SUBSIDIARY PART, ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATE- NESS.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha With regard to the meditations, viz. “Verily, he who shines, let one meditate on him as the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.3.1 ²) and so on, “the ¹ G.B. 4.1.5, p. 7, Chap. 4. ² Ś. R Bh. ŚK.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 6 ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 789 ideas of the sun and the rest" are to be super-imposed on the udgītha and so on, on account of the superiority of the sun, etc. Vedānta-kaustubha Certain meditations, based on the subsidiary parts, are mentioned in Scripture thus: "Verily, he who is the sun, let one meditate on him as the udgītha" (Chānd. 1.3.1) and so on. Here, on the suggestion that on account of the superiority of the udgītha and the rest,—as the subordinate parts of sacrificial acts which are means to an end,— to the sun, etc., which lead to no end, the ideas of the udgītha, etc., are to be super-imposed on the sun and so on—the author now states the correct conclusion. "The ideas of the sun and the rest," i.e. the views of the sun and the rest alone, are to be super-imposed "on the subsidiary parts", i.e. on the subordinate members of sacrificial acts. Why? "On account of appropriateness," i.e. because the superiority of the sun and the rest is appropriate. When the udgītha and the rest are ceremoniously purified by being viewed as the sun, etc., then alone can the sacrificial acts come to produce results. Hence the superiority of the sun and the rest stands to reason. So it is established that the view of the sun, etc., is to be super-imposed on the udgītha and the rest. Here ends the section entitled "The ideas of the sun and the rest" (4). COMPARISON Śaṁkara He reads "aṅgeṣu" instead of "aṅge".¹ Baladeva He too takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, but, as usual, concerned with an entirely different topic, thus: "The ideas of the sun and the rest (as generating from the eyes of the Lord and ¹ Ś. B. 4.1.6, p. 9, Chap 4

790 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 7. ADH. 5.] so on, should be super-imposed) on the limb (of the Lord), on account of appropriateness". That is, the Lord is to be contemplated on as producing the sun from His eyes and so on.¹ Adhikarana 5: The section entitled "Sitting". (Sūtras 7-11) SŪTRA 7 "SITTING, ON ACCOUNT OF POSSIBILITY." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha One should practise meditation "sitting" only, since meditation is possible only on the part of one who is sitting. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been proved above that meditation, the special cause of a direct vision of Brahman, is to be repeated more than once. Now, the problem is being considered as to whether it is to be practised somehow without following any restrictive rule, or only in a sitting posture. On the doubt, viz. whether there is no restrictive rule how medita- tion is to be practised,—whether in a sitting posture, as lying down, walking or standing still; or whether there is a restrictive rule that it is to be practised in a sitting posture alone,—if the prima facie view be that there being no cause for such a restriction, there is no restric- tion,— We reply: "sitting". Why? "On account of possibility," i.e. because meditation is possible on the part of a devotee who is sitting. One who is lying down may fall asleep, while one who is walking or standing still may have his attention diverted owing to his effort for holding the body up and so on, and as such no meditation is possible on their part. ¹ G.B. 4.1.6, p. 9, Chap. 4.