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

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.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 8-9. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 791 SŪTRA 8 “AND ON ACCOUNT OF CONTEMPLATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Meditation being of the form of contemplation, it is to be carried on in a sitting posture alone. Vedānta-kaustubha “And” meditation being of the form of contemplation, as evident from the text: “Should be meditated on” (Bṛh. 2.4.5, 4.5.6); and contemplation, consisting of a continuous stream of ideas having the form of the object contemplated, being possible only on the part of a contemplating devotee who is sitting, there can be no question as to the propriety of the above restrictive rule,—this is the sense. SŪTRA 9 “AND WITH REFERENCE TO IMMOBILITY.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha In the text: “The earth contemplates, as it were” (Chānd. 7.6.1 ¹), the word ‘contemplates’ has been used “with reference to (its) immobility”. Hence one should practise meditation in a sitting posture only. Vedānta-kaustubha In the scriptural text: “The earth contemplates, as it were. The heaven contemplates, as it were. Water contemplates, as it were. The mountains contemplate, as it were” (Chānd. 7.6.1), the term ‘contemplates’ has been used “with reference to the immobility” of the earth and the rest. On account of this indicatory mark too, meditation, having the form of contemplation, knowing and so on, is to be practised in a sitting posture alone. 1 Ś. R. Bh. ŚK. B.

792 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 10-11. ADH. 5.] SŪTRA 10 “AND SMRTIS DECLARE ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “And the Smṛti texts declare”: “Having placed in a clean spot” (Gītā 6.11 ¹) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha “And Smṛti texts declare” that contemplation is possible only on the part of one who is sitting, thus: “Having placed, on a clean spot, one’s steady seat that is neither very high nor very low and consists of a cloth, deer-skin, and kuśa-grass, one over the other; having sat there on the seat, concentrating one’s mind and with the functions of the mind and sense-organs controlled, let one practise deep meditation for the purification of his self” (Gītā 6.11) and so on. ――― SŪTRA 11 “WHERE CONCENTRATION (IS POSSIBLE) THERE, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SPECIFICATION.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “Where” concentration of the mind is possible “there” one should practise meditation, there being no mention in Scripture of a special place and the rest over and above this. Vedānta-kaustubha “Where,” i.e. in whatever place, time and so on, “concentra- tion” of the mind is possible, “there” meditation is to be practised, there being no mention in Scripture of a special place, time and so on. “In a clean level spot; free from pebbles, fire and sand; favourable to the mind by reason of sound, pond and so on; but not hurtful to ――― ¹ Op cit

[sū. 4. 1. 12. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 793 the eye; full of caves and free from wind,—let one apply one's self (to meditation)" (Śvet 2.10),—this text of the Śvetāśvataras also speaks of a place favourable to the concentration of the mind, but not of any special place and so on, as evident from the concluding phrase: 'favourable to the mind'. Hence, it is established that meditation is to be carried on in a sitting posture. Here ends the section entitled "Sitting" (5). Adhikaraṇa 6: The section entitled "Until death". (Sūtra 12) SŪTRA 12 "UNTIL DEATH, FOR THERE ALSO (IT) IS SEEN." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Meditation is to be carried on "until death", since "there also" that "is seen" in the text: "Verily, having stayed thus as long as he lives" (Chānd. 8.15.1 ¹) and so on. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been stated above that the means are to be practised repeatedly. Now, the duration of meditation is being considered. On the doubt, viz. whether meditation, denoted by the terms 'contemplation', 'knowing' and so on, is to be finished within a short time, or is to be continued till the fall of the body,—if it be suggested that it is to be finished within a short time, that much being sufficient to satisfy the demands of the scriptural texts which teach repetition more than one,— We reply: "Until death". Meditation is to be continued unin- terruptedly until death. The word "for" states the reason for this: That there is the continuance of the thought of the object to be medi- tated on "there also", i.e. during that period (viz. from the beginning till death), "is seen", i.e. declared by the scriptural text: "Now, verily, 1 R ŚK.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 12. 794 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 6.] a person consists of purpose. With whatever purpose he departs from this world, that he becomes on departing to that world” (Śat. Br. 10 6.3, 1 ¹) The phrase ‘consists of purpose’ means ‘is given primarily to contemplation’. Similarly, that there is the continuance of the thought of the object to be meditated on till life lasts is declared also by the scriptural text: “Verily, having stayed thus as long as he lives, he attains the world of Brahman” (Chānd. 8.15.1); and in the Smṛti passage: “ ‘Remembering whatever being he leaves the body at the end, to that alone he goes, O son of Kuntī, ever permeated by its nature’ ” (Gītā 8.6). Hence it is established that meditation is to be continued day after day until death. Here ends the section entitled “Until death” (6). COMPARISON Śaṃkara Although literally Śaṃkara interprets the sūtras 7–12 like Nimbārka, yet there is a great difference between them, viz. while Nimbārka is speaking here of the meditation which leads to salvation, Śaṃkara especially excludes such a meditation and speaks of that meditation alone which leads to worldly prosperity. Thus, he points out that the rule about the posture of meditation holds good only in the case of that meditation which leads to worldly prosperity (“abhyudaya-phalopāsanā”), but neither in the case of the meditation on the subordinate members of sacrifices (“karmāṅgopāsanā”), nor in the case of the meditation which aims at real knowledge (“samyag darśanopāsanā”), since the first depends on action, the second on object.² Similarly, the rule regarding the duration of meditation does not hold good in the case of the meditation aiming at knowledge, since a jīvan-mukta, i.e. one who has attained knowledge by medita- tion and has become freed thereby, need not carry on meditation further as long as he lives.³ ¹ P. 806, lines 14-15. ² Ś.B. 4.1.7, pp. 915-916. “Karmāṅga-sambandhiṣu tāvad upāsaneṣu karma-tantratvāt na āsanādi-cintā; nāpi samyag-darśane, vastu-tantratvāt jñānasya”. ³ Op. cit., 4.1.12, p. 918.

[sū. 4. 1. 13. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 795 Baladeva He interprets the phrase: “tatrāpi” to mean ‘even after death’. That is, the devotee not only practises meditation as long as he lives, but even after death, i e. even when he is freed, since the Lord is so beautiful that he is drawn to worshipping Him, though not enjoined to do so.¹ ―――――― Adhikaraṇa 7. The section entitled “On the attainment of that”. (Sūtra 13) SŪTRA 13 “ON THE ATTAINMENT OF THAT, (THERE FOLLOW) NON-CLINGING AND DESTRUCTION OF SUBSEQUENT AND PRIOR SINS ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF THAT ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha There take place “the non-clinging and destruction of subse- quent and prior sins” on the part of a knower. Why? “On account of the designation,” viz. “To one who knows thus, evil deeds do not cling” (Chānd 4.14.3 ²), “All his sins are burnt” (Chānd. 5.24.3 ³). Vedānta-kaustubha Thus, for indicating clearly that if one wishes to have the obstructions removed in order that he may directly attain the place of the Highest Person, one should resort to the means with the greatest care, a discussion about the repetition of the means and so on was undertaken in the chapter dealing with the end. Now, the author shows how on the rise of knowledge all obstructions cease immediately. The text: “Just as water does not cling to the lotus-leaf, so no evil deeds cling to one who knows thus” (Chānd. 4.14.3), declares ―――――― ¹ G.B. 4 1.12, p. 15, Chap. 4. “Mokṣa-paryyantam upāsanaṁ kāryyam iti. Tatrāpi mokṣe ca.” ² Ś. R. Bh. ŚK. B. ³ Op. cit. 21

796 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 13. ADH. 7.] that there is the non-clinging of the subsequent sins on the part of a knower Again, the texts: "Just as a tuft of the Iṣīkā-reed placed on a fire is burnt up, so all his sins are burnt up" (Chānd 5.24.3), "And all his works decay when he who is high and low is seen" (Muṇḍ. 2.2 8), declare that all his prior sins are destroyed. Here the doubt is as to whether the non-clinging and destruction respectively, of the subsequent and prior sins on the part of one who has attained knowledge are justifiable or not. If it be suggested. In accordance with the declaration: "A work done, good or bad, must necessarily be experienced" (Br V.P. 26.70 ¹) and so on, the consequences of the work done must necessarily be undergone. Hence the non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and prior sins are not justifiable; the scriptural texts about such non-clinging and destruction simply refer to the cessation of works the consequences of which have already been undergone,— We reply: "On the attainment" of knowledge, otherwise called 'steady remembrance', 'highest devotion' and so on, through the maturity of such a meditation, "the non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and prior sins" are justifiable. Why? "On account of the designation of that," i.e on account of the designation of the non-clinging of the subsequent sins in the text: "To one who knows thus, evil deeds do not cling" (Chānd. 4.14.13),—this designation cannot be taken to be referring to the non-clinging of works the consequences of which have already been undergone, since in their case there being no question of clinging at all, there is no sense in the denial;—and on account of the designation of the destruction of prior sins in the passages: "So all his sins are burnt up" (Chānd. 5 24.3), "And all his sins decay when he who is high and low is seen" (Muṇḍ. 2.2.8). This designation too cannot be taken to be referring to works the consequences of which have already been undergone since the destruction of such works holds good equally in the case of a non- knower; and since the declaration: "A work which is not experi- enced does not decay even in hundreds of millions of ages. It must be experienced necessarily" (Br. V.P. 26.70) and so on, refers to the case of non-knowers, and to works which have begun to produce consequences. Hence it is established that the non-clinging and

¹ P. 119, col. 2, line 12. 21B

{SŪ. 4. 1. 14. ADH. 8] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 797 destruction of a knower’s subsequent and prior sins, sprung up from thoughtlessness, are indeed justifiable. Here ends the section entitled “On the attainment of that” (7). Adhikaraṇa 8: The section entitled “The other”. (Sūtra 14) SŪTRA 14 “OF THE OTHER TOO, (THERE IS) NON-CLINGING THUS, BUT ON THE FALL.” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Since the good deeds also, aiming at selfish ends, are incompatible with salvation, just as the sins are, there result the non-clinging of the subsequent and the destruction of the prior (in their case too). Immediately after the non-clinging and destruction of the subsequent and prior (merits and sins), salvation arises at once “on the fall” of the body. Vedānta-kaustubha In the immediately adjoining sūtra, it has been said that there is the cessation of the knower’s evil deeds, sprung up from thought- lessness. Now the author points out that there is the cessation of his good deeds no less. If it be suggested: subsequent and prior sins being harmful, let there be the non-clinging and destruction, respectively, of subse- quent and prior sins, through knowledge. But such non-clinging and destruction of good deeds through knowledge are not justifiable, since they being enjoined in Scripture are not incompatible with knowledge,—the author extends the above reasoning here too thus: “Of the other too”. That is, as in the case of sins, there must be non- clinging and destruction, through knowledge, of what is other than sins, i.e. of the good deeds too which aim at selfish ends. Why? On account of the designation of that, i.e. just as the evil deeds are designated as rejectible by one desirous of salvation, since they are incompatible with salvation, so the good deeds, too, are likewise

798 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ 4 1 15. ADH. 9.] designated,—on account of that. And there is the designation of both good and evil deeds as equally rejectible, both being equally incom- patible with salvation. The following texts refer both to good and evil deeds: "All sins return therefrom" (Chānd. 8.4.1). "He shakes off good and evil deeds" (Kauṣ. 1.4) "Verily, he crosses both these" (Bṛh. 4.4.22) Thus, when there are no more good and evil deeds, which are incompatible with salvation, salvation arises at once "on the fall", i.e. on the fall of the body. The word "but" (in the sūtra) implies emphasis Hence it is established that the non- clinging and destruction of the good deeds, too, are justifiable. Here ends the section entitled "The other" (8) COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha Interpretation of the phrase: "pāte tu" is different, viz. 'There is the destruction of the good deeds, which facilitate knowledge, on the fall of the body and not here and now.¹ Adhikaraṇa 9: The section entitled "The works the effects of which have not yet begun". (Sūtra 15) SŪTRA 15 "BUT ONLY THOSE FORMER (WORKS) THE EFFECTS OF WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEGUN, BECAUSE TILL THAT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha On the attainment of knowledge, "the former" good and evil deeds, the effects of which have not yet begun, alone perish. Why? Because in the scriptural text: "For him there is delay so long I am ¹ Śrī. B. 4.1.14, p. 416, Part 2; ŚK. B. 4.1.14, pp. 441-442, Parts 10 and 11.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 15. ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 799 (=he is) free; then I shall ¹ (=he will) attain Brahman" (Chānd. 6 14.2 ²), it is declared that salvation does not arise till there is the fall of the body. Vedānta-kaustubha It has been established that both good and evil deeds are de- stroyed through knowledge. Now, to the objection, viz. Let there be the destruction of those good and evil deeds, too, the effects of which have already begun,—the author replies here. On the doubt, viz. whether through knowledge there is the de- struction of all good and evil deeds, i e. equally of those the effects of which have already begun and those the effects of which have not yet begun, or of those alone the effects of which have not begun,— if it be suggested: since no specification is mentioned in scriptural texts like: "And his works perish when he who is high and low is seen" (Mund. 2 2.8), "All sins are burnt up" (Chānd. 5.24.3), there is the destruction of all without distinction,— The author states the correct conclusion. "Only those the effects of which have not begun yet". The "former" good and bad deeds the effects of which have not begun yet alone perish through know- ledge, but not those the effects of which have already begun. Why? "Because till that," i e. because in the scriptural text: "For him there is delay only so long I am (=he is) not free; then I shall (=he will) attain (Brahman)" (Chānd 6.14.2), it is declared that there is delay for the knower till the fall of the body. This being so, the non-specific texts are to be interpreted in the light of the specific text. Hence it is established that through knowledge there is no destruction of those good and evil deeds the effects of which have already begun. Here ends the section entitled "The works the effects of which have not yet begun" (9). ¹ See V K. 1.1.7. ² Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

800 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA [SŪ. 4. 1. 16. ADH. 10.] Adhikarana 10: The section entitled "Agni- hotra". (Sūtras 16-18) SŪTRA 16 "BUT THE AGNI-HOTRA AND THE REST (ARE TO BE PERFORMED) WITH A VIEW TO THAT EFFECT (VIZ. KNOWLEDGE) ALONE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE OBSERVATION OF THAT." Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha It is not to be apprehended that through knowledge there results the cessation of the duties incumbent on one's own stage of life, such as, Agni-hotra ¹, charity, austerity and so on. They are to be per- formed indeed, as they foster knowledge The scriptural text about sacrifice and so on, prove them to be productive of knowledge Vedānta-kaustubha It has been stated that through the might of knowledge, there results the non-clinging of the other too, i.e. of the good deeds too. Similarly, there results the non-clinging of the daily and occasional duties incumbent on one's own stage of life Hence they are not to be performed,—this objection the author disposes of now. On the doubt, viz. whether the daily and occasional duties like the Agni-hotra and the rest are to be performed by a knower or not,— if it be suggested: Through knowledge there result the non-clinging and destruction of good and evil deeds. What is the use of performing them, seeing that there results the cessation of the Agni-hotra and the rest too, they too being good deeds equally?— We reply: The word "but" clearly indicates the speciality of the Agni-hotra and the rest. "The Agni-hotra and the rest," i.e. the daily and occasional duties incumbent on one's own stage of life, are to be performed by a knower "with a view to that effect alone", viz. the production of knowledge alone. Why? "On account of the observation of that," i.e. because the text: "Him, the Brāh- maṇas desire to know,² by sacrifice, by charity, by austerity, by ¹ Oblation to fire. ² "By the recitation of the Veda."

[SŪ. 4. 1. 17. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAÚSTUBHA 801 fasting” (Bṛh. 4.4.22) declares the duties incumbent on one’s own stage of life, such as, Agni-hotra and the rest, to be means to knowledge. Knowledge is to be acquired so long as life lasts. Hence the duties incumbent on the stages of life are to be performed so long as life lasts. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation of the phrase “tat-kāryyāya” different, viz. “for the sake of that effect (viz salvation)”. That is, just as knowledge produces salvation, so does works like Agni-hotra and the rest.¹ Of course, Śaṁkara points out that works are indirect means to salvation, i.e produce knowledge which produces salvation; while according to Bhāskara, it is a direct means. SŪTRA 17 “FOR (THERE ARE) ALSO (GOOD AND BAD WORKS) OTHER THAN THESE (TO WHICH REFER THE TEXT) OF SOME (ABOUT THE DIVISION) OF BOTH (MERIT AND DEMERIT) ” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “Other than” these works the effects of which have been pro- duced, viz. those that are productive of knowledge, there are “also” works the effects of which have not been produced. To these refer the text of “some”, designating the division “of both” merit and demerit, viz. “The friends, the good deeds, the enemies, the bad deeds”.² Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. To what then does the following text refer to: “His sons inherit his property, his friends the good deeds, his enemies the bad deeds”?—the author replies: 1 Ś.B. 4.1.16, pp. 923-24, Bh. B. 4.1.16, p. 225. 2 Ś, R, Bh, ŚK, B.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 17. 802 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 10.] "Other than those" works which are productive of knowledge, there are "also" good and bad works the results of which have been obstructed by some works of greater strength. "As" some works are undertaken for the sake of selfish ends and what is prohibited is performed through thoughtlessness,¹ so the text "of some", desig- nating the division "of both" merit and demerit, refer to these above works only. The declaration of non-clinging and destruction, viz "The friends the good deeds, the enemies the bad deeds" should be known to be referring to those works COMPARISON Śaṃkara and Bhāskara They interpret the word "ubhayayoḥ" differently, viz. '(Thus is the view) of both (Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa)' ² Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha According to them the word "ubhayayoḥ" means '(There are works) of both (kind, i.e. either prior or subsequent to the rise of knowledge, which are obstructed from producing results)'.³ Baladeva He begins a new adhikarana here (three sūtras), concerned with the case of some Nirapekṣa devotees. Hence the sūtra: "Because other than this (viz. the Chāndogya text) (there is) another (text of Śāṭyāyanins) also, (there is the destruction) of both (good and evil prārabdha-karmas in the case of some nirapekṣa devotees)". That is, the Chāndogya text (Chānd. 6.14.2) declares that a man has to wait until those works the effects of which have already begun to operate are exhausted. But this rule does not hold good in the case of some nirapekṣa devotees, where, as declared by the text of the Śāṭyāyanins, even their prārabdha good and evil deeds go to their friends and foes respectively. Thus, some nirapekṣa devotees 1 All these works are other than those which produce knowledge. 2 Ś.B. 4.1.17, p. 925; Bh. B. 4.1.7, p. 226. 3 Śrī. B. 4 1.17, p. 418, Part 2; ŚK. B. 4.1.17, p. 448, Parts 10 and 11.

[sū. 4. 1 18. ADH. 10.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 803 become free at once, without having to wait for the full exhaustion of their prārabdha-karmas ¹ SŪTRA 18 “BECAUSE ‘WHAT ALONE WITH KNOWLEDGE’—SO (SCRIPTURE DECLARES).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha For, with a view to indicating the strength and weakness of works, it is said, “What alone one does with knowledge” (Chānd. 1.1.10 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha The author here refers again to the greater potency of some works and the lesser potency of others, mentioned under the aphorism “For (there is) a separate fruit, (viz.) non-obstruction” (Br. Sū 3.3.41). The text: “What alone one does with knowledge that alone is more potent” (Chānd. 1 1 10) designates the greater potency of some works and the lesser potency of others. Among these, works of greater strength first begin to produce their own fruits. Hence, when such works of greater strength are about to produce their fruits, certain other good and bad deeds of lesser strength, performed with a view to attaining certain ends, remain without producing those results, like a weak cow kept off from water, grass and so on by a stronger one. When the knower becomes free immediately after the decay of those works the effects of which have already begun, those above works go to his friends and foes respectively,—this is the sense. Hence it is established that with a view to the rise of knowledge, the duties incumbent on his own stage of life, such as, Agni-hotra and the rest, are to be performed by a house-holder; and works like aus- terity, muttering of prayers and so on by one who is bound by chastity. Here ends the section entitled “Agni-hotra” (10). ¹ G.B. 4.1.17, pp 26–28, Chap. 4. ² Ś. R. SK. B.

[SŪ. 4. 1. 19. 804 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 11.] COMPARISON Śaṃkara He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikarana by itself, concerned with the question of the two kinds of Agni-hotra, with or without knowledge, and points out that the former, of course, has a greater capability of producing knowledge, yet the latter too is not absolutely ineffective, but helps the rise of knowledge.¹ Bhāskara He omits this sūtra, pointing out that it is merely superfluous.² Baladeva He continues here the topic of the immediate destruction of the prārabdha-karmas of some nirapekṣa devotees, and points out that since the celebrated Chāndogya text (Chānd. 1 1.10) shows the great potency of vidyā, it is possible that through the grace of vidyā even the prārabdha-karmas may be destroyed at once.³ Adhikaraṇa 11: The section entitled "The destruction of others". (Sūtra 19) SŪTRA 19 "BUT HAVING DESTROYED THE OTHER TWO BY ENJOYMENT, THEN (HE) ATTAINS (BRAHMAN) " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha "But having destroyed" the good and evil deeds, the effects of which have already begun, "by enjoyment", he "attains" Brahman. Here ends the first quarter of the fourth chapter in the Vedānta- pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṃsā texts by the reverend Nimbārka. ¹ Ś B. 4.1.18, pp. 925-926. ² Bh. B. 4.1.17, p. 226. ³ G.B. 4.1.18, p. 29. Chap. 4.

[sū. 4. 1. 19. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 805 Vedānta-kaustubha It has been established at the end of the third chapter that as the end, viz. knowledge, depends upon the cessation of the obstructions, viz. the works the effects of which have already begun, so there is no fixed rule with regard to the time when knowledge is going to arise actually.¹ But here, it has been said that knowledge arises on the fall of the body.² Now, anticipating the enquiry, viz. Whence arises the cessation of the two kinds of works the effects of which have already begun? On the fall of which body is there salvation?--- the author replies:--- On the doubt, viz. Whether the good and evil works---the effects of which have already begun, other than the good and evil works the effects of which have not yet begun, which are the objects of the non-clinging and destruction, and are mentioned under the aphorisms: "On the attainment of that, (there are) non-clinging and destruction, of the subsequent and prior sins, on account of the designation of that" (Br. Sū. 4.1.13). "Of the other too (there is) non-clinging thus, but on fall" (Br. Sū. 4.1.14),---are to be experienced in the body in which knowledge originates, or to be experienced in another body,---if it be suggested: Since another body is not desired, they are to be experienced in the body in which knowledge originates; on its fall, salvation arises,--- We reply: The word "but" is meant for disposing of the objection. "Having destroyed the other two," i.e. good and evil deeds the effects of which have already begun, "by enjoyment", whether in the body in which knowledge originates or in another body, one "attains" Brahman, in accordance with the text: "What is not experienced does not perish" (Br. V.P. 26 70). Hereby, the means to the removal of the obstruction to knowledge, exhibited under the aphorism; "In this world, if obstruction be not present" (Br. Sū. 3.4.51), too is explained. Hence, it is established that there is salvation when on the decay of the works,---the effects of which have already begun,---by enjoyment, there is the fall of the body at the completion of enjoyment. Here ends the section entitled "The destruction of others" (11).

¹ Vide V.P.S. 3.4.51. ² Vide V.P.S. 4.1.14.