https://www.sivanandaonline.org/?cmd=displaysection§ion_id=595&parent=570&format=html
https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-2-insy.html
Chapter Three: Sadhana Adhyaya – Table of Contents
Section 1 (Sutras 292-318)
Introduction and Synopsis
Tadantarapratipattyadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutras 1-7)
THE SOUL AT THE TIME OF TRANSMIGRATION DOES TAKE with it subtle parts of the elements
Tadantarapratipattau ramhati samparishvaktah
prasnanirupanabhya - III.1.1 (292)
In order to obtain another body (the soul) goes enveloped (by subtle elements) (as appears from) the question and explanation (in the scripture, Chhandogya).
Tadantarapratipattau: for the purpose of obtaining a fresh body (Tat: that, i.e. a body; Antara: different, another; Prati- pattau: in obtaining); Ramhati: goes, departs, Samparishvaktah: enveloped (by subtle elements); Prasna: from question; Nirupanabhyam: aid for explanations.
In the Second Chapter all objections raised against the Vedantic view of Brahman on the ground of Sruti and reasoning have been refuted. It has been shown also that all other views are incorrect and devoid of foundation and the alleged mutual contradictions of Vedic texts do not exist. Further it has been shown that all the entities different from the indivi dual soul such as Prana, etc., spring from Brahman for the enjoyment of the soul.
Kritatyayadhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutras 8-11)
THE SOULS DESCENDING FROM HEAVEN HAVE A REMNANT OF KARMA which determines their birth
Kritatyaye'nusayavan drishtasmritibhyam
yathetamanevam cha III.1.8 (299)
On the exhaustion of good work the soul returns to the earth with a remainder of the Karmas, as can be understood from direct statement in Sruti and Smriti, by the same route through which he ascended after death and differently too.
Krita: of what is done, of the Karma; Atyaye: at the end, at the exhaustion; Anusayavan: with a remainder of the Karma; Drishtasmritibhyam: as can be understood from direct statement in Sruti and Smriti; Yatha itam: by the way he went; Anevam: differently; Cha: and.
A fresh topic is discussed here. This Adhikarana teaches the mode of return from heaven
Anishtadikaryadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 12-21)
ANISHTADIKARYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 12-21)
THE FATE AFTER DEATH OF THOSE SOULS WHOSE DEEDS DO NOT entitle them to pass up to Chandraloka
Anishtadikarinamapi cha srutam III.1.12 (303)
The Sruti declares that the non-performers of sacrifices, etc., also (go to the world of moon).
Anishtadikarinam: of those who do not perform sacrifices etc.; Api: even; Cha: also; Srutam: is declared by the Sruti.
The movement of persons doing evil deeds is now described.
Sabhavyapattyadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutra 22)
The soul on its descent from the Chandraloka does not become identified with ether, etc., but attains a similarity of nature
Tatsabhavyapattirupapatteh III.1.22 (313)
(The soul when coming down from the sphere of moon) attains similarity of nature with them, (i.e., with ether, air, etc.,) as this only is possible.
Tatsabhavyapattih: attainment of a similarity of nature with them; Upapatteh: being reasonable.
Natichiradhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutra 23)
IT TAKES ONLY A SHORT TIME FOR THE DESCENT OF THE SOUL
Natichirena viseshat III.1.23 (314)
(The soul passes through the stages of its descent) in a not very long time; on account of the special statement.
Na: not; Atichirena: in a very long time; Viseshat: because of special statement of Sruti.
Anyadhisthitadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 24-27)
WHEN THE SOULS ENTER INTO PLANTS, ETC., THEY ONLY CLING TO THEM and do not themselves become those species
Anyadhishthiteshu purvavadabhilpat III.1.24 (315)
(The descending soul enters) into (plants) animated other (souls), as in the previous cases, on account of scriptural declaration.
Anyadhishthiteshu: into what is possessed or occupied by another; Purvavat: like the previous cases; Abhilapat: on account of the scriptural statement.
The discussion on the way of descent of the individual soul is continued.
Section 2 (Sutras 319-359)
Introduction and Synopsis
Sandhyadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutras 1-6)
The soul in the dream state.
Sandhye srishtiraha hi III.2.1 (319)
In the intermediate stage (between waking and deep sleep) there is (a real) creation; because (the Sruti) says so.
Sandhye: in the intermediate stage (between waking and deep sleep, i.e., in the dream state); Srishtih: (there is real) creation; Aha: (Sruti) says so; Hi: because.
The state of dream is now considered.
Tadabhavadhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutras 7-8)
THE SOUL IN DREAMLESS SLEEP.
Tadabhavo nadishu tat sruteh atmani cha III.2.7 (325)
The absence of that (i.e., of dreams, i.e., dreamless sleep) takes place in the nerves (Nadis or psychic currents) and in the self, as it is known from the Sruti or scriptural statement.
Tadabhavah: absence of that (dreaming) i.e., deep sleep; Nadishu: in the nerves (psychic currents); Tat sruteh: as it is known from the Srutis; Atmani: in the self; Cha: and, also. (Tat: about it.)
The state of dreamless deep sleep is now discussed.
Karmanusmritisabdavidhyadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutra 9)
THE SAME SOUL RETURNS FROM DEEP SLEEP
Sa eva tu karmanusmritisabdavidhibhyah III.2.9 (327)
But the same (soul returns from Brahman after deep sleep) on account of work, remembrance, scriptural text and precept.
Sah eva: the selfsame soul (which went to sleep); Tu: but; Karmanusmritisabdavidhibhyah: on account of Karma or work, memory, scriptural authority and precept; (Sah: he; Eva: only, and no other); Karma: activity, on account of his finishing the action left unfinished; Anusmriti: remembrance, on account of memory of identity; Sabda: from the Sruti; Vidhibhyah: from the commandments.
Here we have to enquire whether the soul when awaking from deep sleep is the same which entered into union with Brahman or another one.
Mugdhe'rdhasampattyadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutra 10)
THE NATURE OF SWOON.
Mugdhe'rddhasampattih pariseshat III.2.10 (328)
In a swoon (in him who is senseless) there is half union on account of this remaining (as the only alternative left, as the only possible hypothesis).
Mugdhe: in a swoon; Ardhasampattih: partial attainment of the state of deep sleep or death; Pariseshat: on account of the remaining, because of excess, as it is a state in addition to all others.
The state of a swoon is now discussed.
Ubhayalingadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutras 11-21)
THE NATURE OF BRAHMAN.
Na sthanato'pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hi III.2.11 (329)
Not on account of (difference of) place also two-fold characteristics can belong to the Highest; for everywhere (scripture teaches It to be without any difference).
Na: not; Sthanatah: on account of (difference of) place; Api: even; Parasya: of the Highest (i.e., Brahman); Ubhayalingam: two-fold characteristics; Sarvatra: everywhere; Hi: because.
The Sutrakara now proceeds to deal with the nature of Brahman.
Prakritaitavattvadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 22-30)
THE NETI-NETI TEXT EXPLAINED
Prakrtaitavattvam hi pratishedhati
tato braviti cha bhuyah III.2.22 (340)
What has been mentioned up to this is denied (by the words not this, not this and the Sruti) says something more than that (afterwards).
Prakritaitavattvam: what bas been mentioned up to this; Hi: because, for; Pratishedhati: denies; Tatah: then that, over and above that; Braviti: declares; Cha: and; Bhuyah: something more. (Prakrita: mentioned first, previously stated; Etavattvam: this much.)
In this group of Sutras also the Sutrakara expounds the Nirvisesha (formless) Brahman.
Paradhikaranam: Topic 7 (Sutras 31-37)
BRAHMAN IS ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.
Paramatah setunmanasambandha-
bhedavyapadesebhyah III.2.31 (349)
(There is something) Superior to this (Brahman) on account of terms denoting a bank, measure, connection and difference (used with respect to It).
Param: greater; Atah: for this, than this (Brahman); Setunmanasambandhabhedavyapadesebhyah: on account of terms denoting a bridge, measure, connection and difference. (Setu: a bridge; Unmana: dimensions; Sambandha: relation; Bheda: difference; Vyapadesebhyah: from the declarations.)
It may be said that there must be something higher than Brahman because Brahman is described as a bridge, or as limit ed or as attained by man or as different from man.
Phaladhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 38-41)
THE LORD IS THE GIVER OF THE FRUITS OF ACTIONS.
Phalamata upapatteh III.2.38 (356)
From Him (the Lord) are the fruits of actions, for that is reasonable.
Phalam: the fruit; Atah: from Him only; Upapatteh: for that is reasonable.
Another characteristic of Brahman is established.
Section 3 (Sutras 360-425)
Introduction and Synopsis
Sarvavedantapratyayadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutras 1-4)
The Vidyas having identical or the same form found in scriptures constitute one Vidya
Sarvavedantapratyayam chodanadyaviseshat III.3.1 (360)
(The Vidyas or the Upasanas) described in the various Vedanta texts (are not different, are identical) on account of the non-difference of injunction, etc., (i.e., connection, form and name).
Sarvavedantapratyayam: exposition of Brahman in all the Vedanta texts; Chodanadyaviseshat: as there is no difference in the injunctions, etc., (i.e., con nection, form and name). (Sarva: all; Veda: the Vedas; Anta: the settled conclusion; Pratyayam: the knowledge, realisation; Chodanadi: or the injunction and others; Aviseshat: as there is no difference.)
Upasamharadhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutra 5)
Particulars of identical Vidyas mentioned in different Sakhas or places are to be combined into one meditation
Upasamharo'rthabhedadvidhiseshavatsamane cha III.3.5 (364)
And in the Upasanas of the same class (mentioned in differ ent Sakhas) a combination (of all the particulars mentioned in all Sakhas is to be made) as there is no difference in the object of meditation, just as (a combination of) all subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice (mentioned in different Sakhas is made).
Upasamharah: combination; Arthabhedat: as there is no difference in the object of meditation; Vidhiseshavat: like the subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice; Samane: in the Upasanas of the same class, in the case of equality, the forms of meditation being the same in effect; Cha: also, and. (Artha: purpose; Abheda: non-difference; Vidhi: injunctions, of the duties enjoined by the scriptures.)
A deduction is made from the four preceding Sutras. This Sutra states the practical outcome of the discussion carried on in the first four Sutras.
Anyathatvadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 6-8)
Those Vidyas with different subject-matter are separate, even if there may be some similarities.
Anyathatvam sabdaditi chennaviseshat III.3.6 (365)
If it be said (that the Udgitha Vidya of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and that of the Chhandogya Upanishad) are different on account of (difference in) texts; we deny this on the ground of their non-difference (as regards essentials).
Anyathatvam: there is difference; Sabdat: on account of (difference in) texts; Iti: so; Chet: if; Na: not; Aviseshat: on account of non-difference (as regards essentials).
This Sutra represents the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent. The opponent tries to establish that the two Vidyas are one.
Vyaptyadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutra 9)
It is appropriate to specialise OM by the term `Udgitha'.
Vyaptescha samanjasam III.3.9 (368)
And because (OM) extends (over the whole of the Vedas), (to specialise it by the term 'Udgitha') is appropriate.
Vyapteh: because (OM) extends (over the whole of the Vedas); Cha: and; Samanjasam: is appropriate, consistent, justifiable.
Sutra 7 is elaborated here.
Sarvabhedadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutra 10)
Unity of the Prana-Vidya.
Sarvabhedadanyatreme III.3.10 (369)
On account of the non-difference (of the Vidya) everywhere (i.e., in all the texts of the different Sakhas where the Prana-Vidya occurs) these qualities (mentioned in two of them are to be inserted) in the other places (e.g., the Kaushitaki Upanishad).
Sarvabhedat: on account of non-difference everywhere; Anyatra: in the other places; Ime: these (qualities are to be inserted).
A concrete instance on the general principle of Sutra 5 is cited.
Anandadyadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 11-13)
Attributes like Bliss, etc., of Brahman have to be combined into one meditation
Anandadayah pradhanasya III.3.11 (370)
Bliss and other attributes (which depict the true nature) of the Principal or the Supreme Self, i.e., Brahman (have to be combined from all places in the meditation on Brahman).
Anandadayah: Bliss and other attributes; Pradhanasya: of the Principal i.e., the Supreme Self or Brahman.
Brahman is described as Bliss, Knowledge, all-pervading, the Self of all, true, etc., in different texts of different Sakhas. All the attributes are not mentioned in all places.
Adhyanadhikaranam: Topic 7 (Sutras 14-15)
Katha Up. I.3.10-11 teaches merely that the Self is higher than everything else
Adhyanaya prayojanabhavat III.3.14 (373)
(The passage in Katha Upanishad I.3.10 tells about the Self only as the highest) for the sake of pious meditation, as there is no use (of the knowledge of the objects being higher than the senses and so on).
Adhyanaya: for the sake of meditation; Prayojanabhavat: as there is no use, as there is no other necessity. (Prayojana: of any other purpose; Abhavat: on account of the absence.)
The previous discussion is continued.
Atmagrihityadhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 16-17)
The Self mentioned in Ait. Up. I.1. is the Supreme Self and the attributes of the Self given elsewhere should be combined with this meditation.
Atmagrihitiritaravaduttarat III.3.16 (375)
(In the Aitareya Upanishad I.1.) the Supreme Self is meant, as in other texts (dealing with creation) because of the subsequent qualification.
Atmagrihitih: the Supreme Self is meant; Itaravat: as in other texts (dealing with creation); Uttarat: because of the subsequent qualification.
We read in the Aitareya Upanishad Verily in the begin ning all this was the Self, one only; there was nothing else whatsoever (I.1). Here the doubt arises whether the term Self denotes the Supreme Self or some other being such as Hiranyagarbha.
Karyakhyanadhikaranam: Topic 9 (Sutra 18)
Only thinking water to be the dress of Prana is enjoined in the Prana-Vidya
Karyakhyanadapurvam III.3.18 (377)
On account of (the rinsing of the mouth with water refer red to in the Prana Vidya) being a reiteration of an act (already ordained by the Smriti), what has not been so ordained elsewhere (is here enjoined by the Sruti).
Karyakhyanat: on account of being a statement of an act (already enjoined by the Smriti); Apurvam: which has not been so enjoined elsewhere.
In regard to Prana Upasana, Achamana is ordained only as reiteration of what is stated elsewhere. What is ordained is only meditation on water as covering food. What is enjoined in Prana Vidya Upasana of Chhandogya Upanishad is not the Achamana, as such. Achamana is enjoined by the Smritis and is common to all. What is ordained is Anagnatatchintana i.e., meditating that the food is covered by water.
Samanadhikaranam: Topic 10 (Sutra 19)
Vidyas of the same Sakha which are identical should be combined, in meditation
Samana evam chabhedat III.3.19 (378)
In the same (Sakha also) it is thus (i.e., there is unity of Vidya,) owing to non-difference (of the object of meditation).
Samana: in the same Sakha; Evam: every, (it is) like this; Cha: and, also; Abhedat: owing to non-difference.
A corollary to Sutra 5 is proved.
Sambandhadhikaranam: Topic 11 (Sutras 20-22)
The names `Ahar' and `Aham' of Brahman occurring in Bri. Up. V.5.1-2 cannot be combined
Sambandhadevamanyatrapi III.3.20 (379)
Thus in other cases also, on account of the connection (of particulars with one and the same Vidya).
Sambandhat: on account of the connection; Evam: thus, like this; Anyatra: in other cases; Api: also.
An inference on the analogy of the preceding Sutra is drawn by way of objection.
This Sutra is a Purvapaksha Sutra. It sets forth the view of the opponent.
Sambhrityadhikaranam: Topic 12 (Sutra 23)
Attributes of Brahman occurring in the Ranayaniya Khila constitute an independent Vidya
Sambhritidyuvyaptyapi chatah III.3.23 (382)
For the same reason (as in the previous Sutra) the support ing (of the world) and pervading the sky (attributed to Brahman in the Ranayaniya Khila) also (are not to be included in other Vidyas or Upasanas of Brahman).
Sambhriti: supporting the world; Dyuvyapti: pervading the sky; Api: also; Cha: and; Atah: for the same reason (as in the previous Sutra). (Dyu: the sky, all the space, heaven).
A restriction to Sutra 5 is made.
Purushavidyadhikaranam: Topic 13 (Sutra 24)
The Purusha Vidya in the Chhandogya and the Taittiriya are not to be combined
Purushavidyayamiva chetareshamanamnanat III.3.24 (383)
And (as the qualities) as (mentioned) in the Purusha-Vidya (of the Chhandogya) are not mentioned (in that) of the others (i.e., in the Taittiriya) (the two Purusha-Vidyas are not one; are not to be combined).
Parushavidyayamiva: as in the Purusha-Vidya (of the Chhandogya); Cha: and; Itaresham: of the others; Anamnanat: because of not being mentioned (in the Taittiriya).
The Purusha Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad and that of the Taittiriya Upanishad are now examined.
Vedhadyadhikaranam: Topic 14 (Sutra 25)
Unconnected Mantras and sacrifices mentioned in certain Upanishads do not belong to Brahma-Vidya
Vedhadyarthabhedat III.3.25 (384)
Because the matter (of certain Mantras) such as piercing and so on is different (from the matter of the approximate Vidyas), (the former are not to be combined with the latter).
Vedhadi: piercing etc.; Arthabhedat: because they have a different meaning.
Certain expressions occurring at the beginning of an Upanishad of the Atharva-Veda are taken up for discussion.
Hanyadhikaranam: Topic 15 (Sutra 26)
The statement that the good and evil deeds of a person go respectively to his friends and enemies is true for texts that mention discarding of such actions by him
Hanau tupayanasabdaseshatvat
kusacchandastutyupaganavattaduktam III.3.26 (385)
But where only the getting rid (of the good and evil) is mentioned (the obtaining of this good and evil by others has to be added) because the statement about acceptance is supplementary (to the statement about the getting rid of) as in the case of the Kusas, metres, praise and hymns or recitations. This (i.e., the reason for this) has been stated (by Jaimini in Purvamimamsa).
Hanau: where only the getting rid (of good and evil) is mentioned; Tu: but; Upayanasabdaseshatvat: on account of the word `acceptance' being supplementary to the word `getting rid'; Kusacchandastutyupaganavat: like Kusa-sticks, metres, praises and hymns; Tat: that; Uktam: has been stated (by Jaimini). (Upayana: acceptance; Sabda: on account of the statement of the word; Seshatvat: on account of being supplementary to.)
Here is a discussion on the shaking off of virtues and vices by the released soul at death and their acceptance by his friends and enemies.
Samparayadhikaranam: Topic 16 (Sutras 27-28)
The shaking off of good and evil by the man of Knowledge occurs only at the time of his death
Samparaye tarttavyabhavattathahyanye III.3.27 (386)
(He who attains knowledge gets rid of his good and evil deeds) at the time of death, there being nothing to be attained (by him on the way to Brahmaloka through those works); for thus others (declare in their sacred texts).
Samparaye: at the time of death; Tarttavyabhavat: there being nothing to be attained; Tatha: in this way, so; Hi: because, for; Anye: others.
This Sutra decides when the individual soul shakes off his good and evil deeds.
Gaterarthavattvadhikaranam: Topic 17 (Sutras 29-30)
The knower of Saguna Brahman alone goes along Devayana, and not the knower of Nirguna Brahman
Gaterarthavattvamubhayathanyatha hi virodhah III.3.29 (388)
(The soul's) journey (along the path of the gods, Devayana) is applicable in a two-fold manner, otherwise there would be contradiction (of scripture).
Gateh: of the journey of the soul (after death), along the path of the gods; Arthavatvam: utility; Ubhayatha: in two ways; Anyatha: otherwise; Hi: for, certainly; Virodhah: contradiction.
Here is a side issue of Sutra 27.
Aniyamadhikaranam: Topic 18 (Sutra 31)
The passage of the soul by Devayana applies equally to all Vidyas of Saguna Brahman
Aniyamah sarvasamavirodhah sabdanumanabhyam III.3.31 (390)
There is no restriction (as to the going on the path of the gods for any Vidya). There is no contradiction as is seen from the Sruti and Smriti.
Aniyamah: (there is) no restriction; Sarvasam: of all; Avirodhah: there is no contradiction; Sabdanumanabhyam: as is seen from Sruti and Smriti. (Sabdah: the word, i.e., the revealed scripture or Sruti; Anumana: inference or Smriti.)
The journey of the soul who knows Brahman is continued.
Yavadadhikaradhikaranam: Topic 19 (Sutra 32)
Perfected souls may take a corporeal existence for divine mission.
Yavadadhikaramavasthitiradhikarikanam III.3.32 (391)
Of those who have a mission to fulfil (there is corporeal) existence, so long as the mission is not fulfilled.
Yavadadhikaram: so long as the mission is not fulfilled; Avasthitih: (there is corporeal) existence; Adhikarikanam: of those who have a mission in life to fulfil. (Yavad: as long as; Adhikaram: mission, purpose to be fulfilled.)
A plausible objection to Sutra 31 is refuted.
Aksharadhyadhikaranam: Topic 20 (Sutra 33)
The negative attributes of Brahman mentioned in various texts are to be combined in all meditations on Brahman
Aksharadhiyam tvavarodhah samanyatadbhavabhyamaupasadavattaduktam III.3.33 (392)
But the conceptions of the (negative) attributes of the Imperishable (Brahman) are to be combined (from different texts where the Imperishable Brahman is dealt with, as they form one Vidya), because of the similarity (of defining the Imperishable Brahman through denials) and the object (the Imperishable Brahman) being the same, as in the case of the Upasad (offerings). This has been explained (by Jaimini in the Purvamimamsa).
Aksharadhiyam: of the meditation of negative attributes belonging to the Imperishable; Tu: but, indeed; Avarodhah: combination; Samanyatadbhavabhyam: because of the similarity (of denying Brahman through denials) and the object (viz., Imperishable Brahman) being the same; Aupasadavat: as in the case of the Upasad (offering) like the hymn or the Mantra in connection with the Upasada rite; Tat: that; Uktam: has been explained (by Jaimini in the Purvamimamsa).
The negative attributes of the Imperishable are now examined, as the positive attributes were examined in Sutra 11 of this section.
Iyadadhikaranam: Topic 21 (Sutra 34)
Mundaka III.1.1 and Katha I.3.1 constitute one Vidya.
Iyadamananat III.3 34 (393)
Because (the same thing) is described as such and such.
Iyat: so much only, this much; Amananat: on account of being men tioned in the scripture.
Antaratvadhikaranam: Topic 22 (Sutras 35-36)
Brihadaranyaka III.4.1 and III.5.1 constitute one Vidya
Antara bhutagramavatsvatmanah III.3.35 (394)
As the Self is within all, as in the case of the aggregate of the elements, (there is oneness of Vidya).
Antara: as being innermost of all, inside, the status of being the inmost; Bhutagramavat: as in the case of the aggregate of the elements; Svatmanah: of one's own self.
Two passages from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad are taken up for discussion to show that they relate to the same Vidya.
Vyatiharadhikaranam: Topic 23 (Sutra 37)
The Sruti prescribes reciprocal meditation in Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6.
Vyatiharo vishimsanti hitaravat III.3.37 (396)
There is exchange (of meditation), because the texts distin guish (two meditations); as in other cases.
Vyatiharah: exchange; reciprocity (of meditation); Visimshanti: (the scriptures) explain clearly, distinguish; Hi: because, for; Itaravat: as in other cases.
The Aitareya Aranyaka says with reference to the person in the sun, What I am, that He is; what He is, that am I (Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6).
Satyadyadhikaranam: Topic 24 (Sutra 38)
Brihadaranyaka V.4.1 and V.5.3 treat of one Vidya about Satya Brahman
Saiva hi satyadayah III.3.38 (397)
The same (Satya Vidya is taught in both places), because (attributes like) Satya etc., (are seen in both places).
Sa eva: the same (Satya Vidya); Hi: because; Satyadayah: (attributes like) Satya etc.
We read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad He who knows this great, glorious, first born (Being) as the Satya Brahman, conquers these worlds (V.4.1). Again we read That which is Satya is that Sun the being who is in that orb and the being who is in the right eye... he destroys evils (V.5.3).
Now a doubt arises whether these two Satya Vidyas are one or different.
Kamadyadhikaranam: Topic 25 (Sutra 39)
Attributes mentioned in Chh. Up. VIII.1.1 and Bri. Up. IV.4.22 are to be combined on account of several common features in both texts
Kamaditaratra tatra chayatanadibhyah III.3.39 (398)
(Qualities like true) desire etc., (mentioned in the Chhandogya Upanishad are to be inserted) in the other (i.e., in the Brihadaranyaka) and (those mentioned) in the other (i.e., in the Brihadaranyaka are also to be inserted in the Chhandogya) on account of the abode, etc., (being the same in both).
Kamadi: (Satyasankalpadi) (True) desire etc.; Itaratra: in the other, elsewhere, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad; Tatra: there, in the Chhandogya Upanishad; Cha: also; Ayatanadibhyah: on account of the abode etc.
Dahara Vidya of the Chhandogya and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishads is now discussed.
Adaradhikaranam: Topic 26 (Sutras 40-41)
Pranagnihotra need not be observed on days of fast.
Adaradalopah III.3.40 (399)
On account of the respect shown (to the Pranagnihotra by the Sruti) there can be no omission (of this act) (even when the eating of food is omitted).
Adarat: on account of the respect shown; Alopah: there can be no omission.
This Sutra gives the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent.
Tannirdharanadhikaranam: Topic 27 (Sutra 42)
Upasanas mentioned in connection with sacrifices are not their parts, but separate.
Tannirdharananiyamastaddrishteh prithagghyapratibandhah phalam III.3.42 (401)
There is no rule about the inviolability of that (i.e., Upasanas connected with certain sacrifices) that is seen (from the Sruti itself); for a separate fruit (belongs to the Upasanas), viz., non-obstruction (of the results of the sacrifice).
Tannirdharananiyamah: no rule, about the inviolability of that; Taddrishtih: that being seen (from the Sruti); Prithak: separate; Hi: because; Apratibandhah: non-obstruction; Phalam: fruit, reward, result.
This Sutra states that a meditation or Upasana prescribed in connection with a ceremonial rite is not compulsory.
------------------------
------------------------
Pradanadhikaranam: Topic 28 (Sutra 43)
Meditations on Vayu and Prana are to be kept separate notwithstanding the essential oneness of these two.
Pradanavadeva taduktam III.3.43 (402)
As in the case of the offerings (Vayu and Prana must be held apart). This has been explained (in the Purvamimamsa Sutra).
Pradanavat: as in the case of the offerings of the `Pradana, oblation'; Eva: exactly; Tat: that; Uktam: has been stated.
The section of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which begins Voice held, I shall speak (Bri. Up. I.5.21) determines Prana to be the best amomg the organs of the body and Vayu to be the best among the Devas.
Lingabhuyastvadhikaranam: Topic 29 (Sutras 44-52)
The fires in Agnirahasya of the Brihadaranyaka are not part of the sacrificial act, but form an independent Vidya
Lingabhuyastvat taddhi baliyastadapi III.3.44 (403)
On account of the majority of indicatory marks (the fires of the mind, speech, etc., in the Agnirahasya of the Vajasaneyins do not form part of the sacrifice), for it (the indicatory mark) is stronger (than the context or the general subject matter). This also (has been explained in the Purvamimamsa Sutras by Jaimini).
Lingabhuyastvat: because of an abundance of distinguishing marks; Tat: that, the distinguishing mark; Hi: because; Baliyah: is stronger; Tat: that; Api: also.
In the Agnirahasya of the Vajasaneyins (Satapatha Brahmana) certain fires named after mind, speech, eyes, etc., are mentioned.
Purvavikalpah prakaranat syat kriyamanasavat III.3.45 (404)
पूर्वविकल्पः प्रकरणात्स्यात्क्रिया, मानसवत् ॥Brahma-Sutra 3.3.45
(The fires spoken of in the previous Sutra are) alternative forms of the one mentioned first, (i.e., the actual sacrificial fire) on account of the context; (they) ought to be part of the sacrifice like the imaginary drink or the Manasa-cup.
Purvavikalpah: an alternative form of the already mentioned first;
Prakaranat: on account of the context, as can be understood from the subject matter of the chapter;
Syat: there may be, ought to be;
Kriyamana savat: ceremonial act, like the act of meditation, like the imaginary drink, as in the case of mental operation in the soma-sacrifice.
An objection is raised to the preceding Sutra.
The Purvapakshin raises a fresh objection. On the tenth day of the Soma sacrifice a Soma drink is offered to Prajapati wherein the earth is regarded as the cup and the sea as the Soma. This is a mental act only, and yet it forms a part of the sacrifice.
The same then holds good with regard to the quasi-agnis made of mind and so on though these fires are mental, i.e., imaginary, yet they form part of the sacrifice and not an independent Vidya, because of the context. They are an alternate form of the actual fire mentioned first.
You may say that it is only Arthavada and that a mere Arthavada cannot override the context and that such meditation is part of the Karma as is the case in the Dasaratra Karma.
Atidesascha III.3.46 (405)
And on account of the extension (of the attributes of the actual fire to these imaginary fires).
Atidesat: on account of the extension (of the attributes of' the first to these fires);
Cha: and.
Objection to Sutra 44 is continued by presenting another argument in support of Sutra 45.
The Purvapakshin gives another reason to support his view. The Sruti in that passage ascribes all the attributes of the actual fire to these imaginary fires. Therefore, they are part of the sacrifice.
Vidyaiva tu nirdharanat III.3.47 (406)
विद्यैव तु, निर्धारणात् ॥Brahma-Sutra 3.3.47
But (the fires) rather constitute the Vidya, because (the Sruti) asserts it.
Vidya: Vidya, form of meditation or worship, Knowledge;
Eva: alone, indeed;
Tu: verily, undoubtedly, but;
Nirdharanat: because the Sruti asserts it.
Objections raised in Sutras 45 and 46 are now refuted.
The word `Tu' (but) sets aside the Purvapaksha. It refutes the opponent.
The present Sutra declares that the fires form an independent Vidya, because the text asserts that They are built of knowledge (Vidya) only, and that By knowledge they are built for him who thus knows.
Darsanaccha III.3 48 (407)
दर्शनाच्च ॥Brahma-Sutra 3.3.48
And because (in the text indicatory marks of that are) seen.
Darsanat: it being seen in the scriptures, because it is clearly stated in Sruti, because (of the indicatory marks) seen;
Cha: and.
The indicatory marks are those referred to in Sutra 44. In fact the internal indications show that it is a Vidya and not a Karmanga.
-------------------------
More detailed explanation
-------------------------
Srutyadibaliyastvaccha na badhah III.3.49 (408)
(The view that the Agnis or fires constitute an independent Vidya) cannot be refuted, owing to the greater force of the Sruti etc.
Srutyadibaliyastvat: on account of the greater force of the Sruti etc.; Cha: and; Na: no, cannot; Badhah: refutation.
Objections raised in Sutras 45 and 46 are further refuted.
There is no negation of this view on the basis of the context, because of the greater strength of Sruti, etc.
Our opponent has no right to determine on the ground of Prakarana that the Agnis are subordinate to the sacrificial action and so to set aside our view according to which they are independent. For we know from the Purvamimamsa that direct enunciation (Sruti), indicatory mark (Linga) and syntactical connection (Vakya) are of greater force than leading subject matter (Prakarana) and all those three means of proof are seen to confirm our view of the Agnis being independent.
Mere context is of no force against express Sruti, Linga, etc. The Sruti used the word `Eva' where there is an imperative tense, etc., used, a mere Upadesa can be treated as an Arthavada, because there is also an express command. Where there is no such indication, an Upadesa must be treated as a Vidhi. Therefore what we have here is an independent Vidya and not a Karmanga.
The Sruti directly says, All these fires are kindled with knowledge alone. The indicatory mark is this. All beings kindle these fires for him, even when he is asleep. This continuity of the fire shows that they are mental ones. An actual sacrifice is not continued during sleep. The syntactical connections Through meditation alone these fires of the worshipper are kindled. These three are more forcible than mere context.
Anubandhadibhyah prajnantaraprithaktvavat
drishtascha taduktam III.3.50 (409)
On account of the connection and so on (the fires built of mind, etc., form an independent Vidya), in the same way as other Vidyas (like Sandilya Vidya) are separate; and it is seen (that in spite of the context a sacrifice is treated as independent). This has been explained (in the Purvamimamsa Sutras by Jaimini).
Anubandhadibhyah: from the connection and so on; Prajnantaraprithaktvavat: even as the other Vidyas are separate; Drishtah: (it is) seen; Cha: and; Tat: that; Uktam: is stated (in the Purvamimamsa by Jaimini).
The argument in refutation of Sutras 45 and 46 is continued.
This Sutra gives additional reasons in support of the view set forth in Sutra 47.
Independence has, against the general subject matter, to be assumed for the fire-altars built of mind and so on, because the text connects the constituent members of the sacrificial action with activities of the mind. The text connects for the purpose of Sampad Upasana (meditations based on resemblance) parts of a sacrifice with mental activities, e.g., These fires are started mentally, the altars are set up mentally, the cups are taken mentally, the Udgatris are praised men tally, the Hotris are recited mentally, everything connected with this sacrifice is done mentally. This is possible only if there is a sharp difference between things which resemble each other.
The Sruti mentions in regard to such mental worship all the greatness of a Karmanga. Therefore Atidesa (similarity) applies even on the footing of the context referring to an inde pendent Vidya which is separate from a Karmanga.
The fires constitute an independent Vidya, just as the Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya, form separate Vidyas, although mentioned along with sacrificial acts.
A similar thing is seen in Aveshti being done as an independent ceremony in the Rajasuya sacrifice. It is observed in the sacrificial portion of the Vedas, that though the sacrifice Aveshti is mentioned along with the Rajasuya sacrifice, it is yet considered as an independent sacrifice by Jaimini in the Purva mimamsa Sutras.
Na samanyadapyupalabdhermrityuvanna hi
lokapattih III.3.51 (410)
In spite of the resemblance (of the fires to the imaginary drink, they do) not (constitute part of the sacrificial act) because it is seen (from the reasons given, and on the ground of Sruti that they form an independent Vidya) as in the case of death; for the world does not become (fire, because it resembles fire in some points).
Na: not; Samanyadapi: in spite of the resemblance, because of common ness, on the ground of their resemblance to sacrificial fire; Upalabdheh: for it is seen; Mrityuvat: just as in the case of death; Na hi lokapattih: for the world does not become (fire on account of certain resemblances).
The argument in refutation of Sutras 45 and 46 is continued.
Though being a mental act, there is an element of similarity, it is not a Karmanga because it is stated to have a separate fruit. This is clear from the illustrations relating to Mrityu and describing the earth as fire.
The resemblance cited by the Purvapakshin has no force. It cannot certainly stand because on account of the reasons already given, viz., the Sruti, indicatory mark, etc., the fires in question subserve the purpose of man only, and not the purpose of some sacrificial action.
Mere resemblance can hardly justify the contrary view. Anything indeed may resemble anything in some point or other; but in spite of that there remains the individual dissimilarity of each thing from all other things.
The case is analogous to that of `death'. The resemblance cited is like the common epithet `death' applied to fire and the being in the sun. The being in that orb is death indeed (Sat. Br. X.5.2.3). Fire indeed is death (Tait. Samh. V.1.10.3). This resemblance cannot make fire and the being in the same one.
Again we have This world is a fire indeed, O Gautama, the sun is its fuel etc., (Chh. Up. V.4.1). Here it does not follow from the similarity of fuel and so on that the world does not actually become fire.
Thus also in our case. Hence from the fact that the Manaschita Agni (fire) is a mental act like the Manasagraha which is a Karmanga, you cannot on that ground of such similarity alone argue that it also is a Karmanga.
Parena cha sabdasya tadvidhyam
bhuyastvattvanubandhah III.3.52 (411)
And from the subsequent (Brahmana) the fact of the text (under discussion) being such (i.e., enjoining an independent Vidya) (is known). But the connection (of the fanciful Agnis or imaginary fires with the actual fire is) on account of the abundance (of the attributes of the latter that are imagined in these fires).
Parena: from the subsequent (Brahmana), by the subsequent expression, by the statements immediately following; Cha: and; Sabdasya: of Sruti, of the text, of the word; Tadvidhyam: the fact of being such; Bhuyastvat: because of abundance; Tu: but; Anubandhah: connection.
In a subsequent Brahmana we have By knowledge they ascend there where all wishes are attained. Those skilled in words do not go there, nor those who destitute of knowledge do penance. This verse depreciates mere works and praises Vidya or knowledge. A former Brahmana also viz., the one beginning Where that orb leads (Sat. Br. X.5.2.23) concludes with a state ment of the fruit of knowledge Immortal becomes he whose self is death and thereby shows that works are not the chief thing. Hence we conclude that the injunction of the Sruti is that the fires constitute an independent Vidya.
The connection of the fires with the actual fire is not because they constitute part of the sacrifice but because many of the attributes of the real fire are imagined in the fires of the Vidya, in the Agnis built of mind. The statement of the fires built of mind along with the ordinary sacrificial fire is due to an abundance of common matters with the latter.
All this establishes the conclusion that the fire-altars built of mind and so on constitute an independent Vidya.
Aikatmyadhikaranam: Topic 30 (Sutras 53-54)
Atman is an entity distinct from the body.
Eka atmanah sarire bhavat III.3.53 (412)
Some (maintain the non-existence) of a separate self (besi des the body) on account of the existence (of the self) where a body is (only).
Eka: some (maintain the non-existence); Atmanah: of a separate self (besides the body); Sarire: in the body; Bhavat: because of existence.
In this topic the existence of an Atman apart from the body is taken up for discussion. Unless there is a soul apart from the body there is no use of the scripture teaching liberation. Nor can there be any scope for ethical commands which are the means of attainment of heaven or for the teaching that the soul is Brahman.
Angavabaddhadhikaranam: Topic 31 (Sutras 55-56)
Upasanas connected with sacrificial acts, i.e., Udgitha Upasana are valid for all schools
Angavabaddhastu na sakhasu hi prativedam III.3.55 (414)
But (the Upasanas or meditations connected with parts) (of sacrificial acts are) not (restricted) to (particular) Sakhas, according to the Veda (to which they belong), (but to all its Sakhas because the same Upasana is described in all).
Angavabaddhah: (Upasanas) connected parts (of sacrificial acts); Tu: but; Na: not; Sakhasu: to (particular) Sakhas; Hi: because; Prativedam: in each Veda, according to the Veda.
There is no rule that the Angavabaddha (Karmanga) Upa sana in each Sruti Sakha is separate and should be confined to it alone.
Bhumajyayastvadhikaranam: Topic 32 (Sutra 57)
Vaisvanara Upasana is one entire Upasana.
Bhumnah kratuvajjyayastvam tatha hi darsayati III.3.57 (416)
Importance (is given to the meditation) on the entire form (of Vaisvanara) as in the case of sacrifice; for thus (the Sruti) shows.
Bhumnah: on the entire form; Kratuvat: as in the case of sacrifice; Jyayastvam: prominence, pre-eminence, importance; Tatha: so; Hi: be cause, for, as; Darsayati: (the Sruti) shows.
The Vaisvanara Vidya is discussed here.
Sabdadibhedadhikaranam: Topic 33 (Sutra 58)
Various Vidyas like the Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya and so on are to be kept separate and not combined into one entire Upasana
Nana sabdadibhedat III.3.58 (417)
(The Vidyas are) separate, on account of the difference of words and the like.
Nana: different, various; Sabdadibhedat: on account of difference of names of words, etc. (Bhedat: due to variety.)
In the previous Sutra we have arrived at the conclusion that a meditation on Vaisvanara as a whole is the pre-eminent meaning of the text, although special fruits are stated for meditations on parts such as Sutejas and so on.
Vikalpadhikaranam: Topic 34 (Sutra 59)
Any one of the Vidyas should be selected according to one's own option or choice.
Vikalpo'visishtaphalatvat III.3.59 (418)
There is option (with respect to the several Vidyas), because the result (of all the Vidyas) is the same.
Vikalpah: option; Visishtaphalatvat: on account of (all Vidyas) having the same result.
The most important Vidyas are: Sandilya Vidya, Bhuma Vidya, Sat Vidya, Dahara Vidya, Upakosala Vidya, Vaisvanara Vidya, Udgitha Vidya, Anandamaya Vidya, Akshara Vidya.
Kamyadhikaranam: Topic 35 (Sutra 60)
Vidyas yielding particular desires may or may not be combined according to one's liking
Kamyastu yathakamam samucchiyeranna va
purvahetvabhavat III.3.60 (419)
But Vidyas for particular desires may be combined or not according to one's desires on account of the absence of the previous reason (mentioned in the previous Sutra).
Kamyah: Vidyas adopted for some sensuous desires; Tu: but; Yatha kamam: according to one's desire or liking; Samucchiyeran: may be combined; Na: not; Va: or; Purva: the former; Hetu: reason; Abhavat: on account of the absence of.
This Sutra shows an exception to the previous Sutra that more Vidyas than one may be combined where the object is other than the realisation of Brahman.
107-Vedant Darshan: Brahma Sutra, Adhyaya-3 Pada-3 Sutra-61-66: by Acharya Surya Nanda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlkE5C_WEqA
Yathasrayabhavadhikaranam: Topic 36 (Sutras 61-66)
Of the six Sutras which are contained in this Adhikarana, the first four Sutras are Purvapaksha Sutras and the last two Sutras are Siddhanta Sutras.
Meditations connected with members of sacrificial acts may or may not be combined according to one's liking
Angeshu yathasrayabhavah III.3.61 (420)
With regard (to meditations) connected with members (of sacrificial acts) it is as with (the members) with which they are connected.
Angeshu: with regard (to meditations) connected with members (of sacrificial acts); Yathasrayabhavah: it is as with (members) with which they are connected.
Different instructions connected with a sacrifice are stated in the different Vedas. The scriptures say that all these members mentioned in the different Vedas are to be combined for the due performance of the principal one.
The question now is, which is the rule to be followed with regard to the meditations or Upasanas connected with these members.
The present Sutra declares that the same rule which applies to the members applies also to the Upasanas connected with them. It is according to the abodes. As the abiding places of those meditations, viz., the Stotra and so on are combined for the performance of the sacrifice, so those meditations or Upasanas also; for a meditation is subject to what it rests on. All these Upasanas are to be combined.
Just as the Stotras, etc., are combined when performing Karmas, so also the Upasanas which are Angas of Karma (Angavabaddha Upasana) should be combined.
Sishtescha III.3.62 (421)
And from the injunction of the Sruti.
Sishteh: from the injunction of the Sruti; Cha: and.
An argument in support of the objection raised in Sutra 61 is adduced.
That is because the Upasanas depend on the Stotras.
As the Stotra and the other members of the sacrifice on which the meditations under discussion rest are taught in the three Vedas, so also are the meditations resting on them. Just as the members are scattered in the different Vedas, so also are the meditations connected with them. There is no difference as regards the injunction of the Sruti with reference to these meditations.
There is no difference between the members of a sacrificial act and the meditations referring to them.
Samaharat III.3.63 (422)
On account of the rectification.
Samaharat: on account of the rectification.
A further reason is given by the opponent. Another argu ment in support of Sutra 61 is adduced.
There is also indication in the Sruti about such combination. Such combination is seen when the Udgatri performs the Hautra Karma described in another Veda for removing the effects of error in the discharge of his function.
Chhandogya Upanishad declares What is Udgitha is OM or Pranava and what is OM is Udgitha. This meditation on the oneness of the Udgitha and OM mends the Udgitha defiled by any mistake committed even on the part of the Hotri, the hymn-reciting priest in recitation of the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.5.5).
Here it is said that the mistakes committed by the Udgatri or chanting priest of the Sama Veda are rectified by the recitation of the Hotri or invoking priest of the Rigveda. This indicates that though the meditations are given in the different Vedas they are yet interlinked. Hence all of them have to be observed.
The passage From the seat of the Hotri, he sets right any mistake committed in the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.5.5), declares that owing to the force of the meditation on the unity of Pranava and Udgitha, the Hotri rectifies any mistake he may commit in his work, by means of the work of the Hotri.
Now, as a meditation mentioned in one Veda is connected with what is mentioned in another Veda, in the same manner as a thing mentioned in another Veda, the above passage suggests the conclusion that all meditations on members of sacrificial acts, in whatever Veda they may be mentionedhave to be combined.
A thing belonging to the Rigveda, viz., Pranava is, accord ing to the Chhandogya text, connected with the Sama Veda meditation on the Udgitha. Hence meditations also which belong to different Vedas may be combined; because there is no difference between them and things as far as connection is concerned.
Gunasadharanyasrutescha III.3.64 (423)
And from the Sruti declaring `OM' which is a common feature (of the Udgitha Vidya) to be common to all the Vedas.
Gunasadharanyasruteh: from the Sruti declaring the feature of `OM' as being common to all the Vedas; Cha: and.
Another argument in support of Sutra 61 is adduced.
Further Pranava (Omkara) is common to all the Upasanas and links them up.
It is found in Sruti that OM is the common property of all the Vedas. Therefore, it is an inseparable concomitant of the sacrificial rites, prescribed in the Vedas. Hence the Vidyas also, being dependent on OM, are concomitants of the sacrificial rites. Chhandogya Upanishad declares Through this (`OM') the Vedic Vidya proceeds. With OM the Adhvaryu gives orders, with OM the Hotri recites, with OM the Udgatri sings (Chh. Up. I.1.9). This is stated with re ference to OM, which is common to all the Vedas and all the Upasanas in them. This indicates that as the abode of all Vidyas, viz., OM, is common, so the Vidyas that rest in it are common also. Therefore, all of them are to be observed.
Na va tatsahabhavasruteh III.3.65 (424)
(The meditations connected with members of the sacrificial acts are) rather not (to be combined) as the Sruti does not state their going together.
Na: not; Va: rather; Tatsahabhavasruteh: their correlation not being mentioned by the Sruti. (Tat: their; Sahabhava: about being together; Asruteh: because there is no such injunction in Sruti).
The words `Na va' `rather not' discard the Purvapaksha. This Sutra refutes the contention raised in Sutras 61-64.
This and the following Sutra give the conclusion.
There is no Sruti commanding such combination of the Karmanga Upasanas. No Sruti refers to such compulsory combination of the Upasanas. So they can be done singly or in combination as we like.
There is no binding rule that the Vidyas, depending on the Pranava or on any part of a sacrificial rite, is a necessary concomitant of the sacrifice. It may be dispensed with or retained at the option of the performer. But there is this difference. If Vidyas be associated with the rites greater good will accrue.
Though the utterance of the Pranava or the Udgitha hymn has been enjoined by the Sruti to be necessary for the sacrificial performance, yet Sruti does not insist that the Vidya (meditation) portion of the performance is a necessary adjunct to the mind. It is not absolutely necessary for the fulfilment of external sacrifices. A sacrifice may be per formed even without the Vidya (meditation) merely by utterance of Mantras, singing of the Udgitha hymns, pouring of the clarified butter into the sacred fire and the like external rites, in order to attain particular desired objects, but the Vidya or meditation on Brahman leads to realisation of Brahman.
The rule for combining the instructions regarding sacrifices that are scattered in all the Vedas cannot be applied with regard to the meditations (Upasanas) connected with them. If the instructions regarding the sacrifices are not combined, the sacrifice will itself fail. But it is not the case if the Upasanas are not practised, because Upasanas only increase the fruits of the sacrifice (Vide III.3.42). Upasanas are not inseparable from the sacrifice.
Therefore, Upasanas (Vidyas, meditations) may or may not be practised.
Darsanaccha III.3.66 (425)
And because the Sruti (scripture) says so (shows it).
Darsanat: because the Sruti says so, shows it from Sruti; Cha: and, also.
This Sutra is adduced in support of Sutra 65.
This may also be inferred from Sruti.
Chhandogya Upanishad declares The Brahmana (superintending chief priest) who possesses such knowledge saves the sacrifice, the sacrificer and all the priests, just as the horse saves the horseman (Chh. Up. IV.17.10).
This shows that the scriptures do not intend that all the meditations should go together. For, if all meditations were to be combined, all priests would know them all and the text could not specially announce that the Brahmana, chief superintending priest, possessing a certain knowledge thereby saves the others.
The meditations, therefore, according to one's liking may or may not be combined.
End of the Third Pada (Section 3) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.
Section 4 (Sutras 426-477)
Introduction and Synopsis
Purusharthadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutra 1-17)
Knowledge of Brahman is independent of sacrificial acts.
108-Vedant Darshan: Brahma Sutra, Adhyaya-3 Pada-4 Sutra-1: Acharya Surya Nanda :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf1GMfQ3KSk
Purushartho'tah sabdaditi baadarayanah III.4.1 (426)
From this (Brahma Vidya or Brahma Jnana results) the purpose or the chief object of pursuit of man, because the scriptures state so; thus (holds) the sage Baadarayana.
Purusharthah: purpose of man, object of human pursuit, here the chief object, i.e., salvation; Atah: from this, from Brahma Vidya; Sabdat: from the scriptures, because the scriptures state so, from Sruti; Iti: so thus (says), this is the opinion of; Baadarayanah: the sage Baadarayana, (holds).
The result or fruit of Brahma Vidya is stated.
The Sutrakara Sri Vyasa now proceeds to show that Brahma Jnana leads not to Karma, but to the attainment of the highest Purushartha, i.e., Moksha or the final emancipation. That is Baadarayana's teaching.
The four Purusharthas are: Dharma (discharge of religious duty), Artha (acquisition of wealth, worldly prosperity), Kama (enjoyment), and Moksha (salvation). Knowledge of Brahman is not merely connected with sacrificial acts by affording to the agent a certain qualification. It definitely paves the way for the attainment of the final release or freedom from births and deaths.
Whence is this known? From the scripture.
Baadarayana bases his arguments on the Sruti texts, such as The knower of Atman goes beyond griefTarati sokamatmavit (Chh. Up. III.4.1). He who knows the highest Brah man becomes even BrahmanBrahmavitbrahmaivabhavati (Mun.Up.III.2.9). He who knows Brahman attains the HighestBrahmavidapnoti Param (Tait. Up. II.1).
For him who has a teacher there is delay only so long as he is not delivered; then he will be perfect (Chh. Up. VI.14.2). He who has searched out and understood the Self which is free from sin, etc., obtains all worlds and all desires (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1). The Atman is to be seen etc., up to Thus far goes immortality (Bri. Up. IV.5.6-15).
These and similar texts emphatically declare that Knowledge of Brahman effects the highest purpose of man or Supreme Purushartha.
Against this the Purvapakshin raises his objection as follows. The poorva pakshin is Jaimini.
109-Vedant Darshan: Brahma Sutra, Adhyaya-3 Pada-4 Sutra-2-7: Acharya Surya Nanda :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjR_bugQrgc
Seshatvatpurusharthavado yathanyeshviti jaiminih III.4.2 (427)
Because (the self) is supplementary (to sacrificial acts), (the fruits of the Knowledge of the Self) are mere praise of the agent, as in other cases; thus Jaimini opines.
Seshatvat: because of being supplementary (to sacrificial acts); Pusushar thavadah: are mere praise or the agent; Yatha: as; Anyeshu: in other cases; Iti: thus (says); Jaiminih: Jaimini (holds).
Sutras 2 to 7 are Purvapaksha Sutras and Sutras 8 to 17 are Siddhanta Sutras.
Jaimini thinks that the Sruti texts merely praise the doer of Karma and that Brahmajnana is only an accessory of Karma (Karmanga).
He is of the opinion that the Vedas merely prescribe works to attain certain purposes including emancipation. He holds that the knowledge of Brahman has no independent fruit of its own because it stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial action. This relation is meditated by the Self, the object of knowledge, which is the agent in all works and, therefore, itself stands in a subordinate relation to action. The agent becomes qualified for actions, the fruit of which will only appear after death by knowing that his self will survive the body.
A man undertakes a sacrificial act only when he is conscious that he is different from the body and that after death he will go to heaven when he will enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice.
The qualification the self thus acquires is similar to that which the rice-grains acquire by being sprinkled with water; because they become fit to be used in the sacrifice, only through this latter act of ceremonial purification.
As the knowledge of the Self has no independent position, it cannot have an independent fruit of its own. Therefore the passages which state such fruits cannot be taken as injunctions of fruits, but merely as Arthavadas (or glorificatory passages), like other Arthavadas relating to the substance (Dravya) or to the purification of the substance (Samskara) or to subordi nate acts themselves (Karma), making some additional state ment about the fruits of the sacrificial actions to which the knowledge of the Self is auxiliary.
Jaimini maintains that the statement that the reward of Brahma Jnana is the highest good does not mean that such knowledge of the Self by itself yields any real fruit but the statement is only an exhortation to the performance of the sacrifices. He says that the knowledge of the self is useful only so far as it produces in the performer a belief in his extramundane existence to enable him to enjoy the rewards of his sacrifices. The statement that it yields any fruit by itself is only an exhortation to purification of the sacrificer. The purification of the sacrificer is a necessary concomitant factor like other material requisites of a sacrifice; because without this purifica tion he would not be assured of his surviving the body and enjoying the fruit of his sacrifices in a higher world after death.
Acharadarsanat III.4.3 (428)
Because we find (from the scriptures such) conduct (of men of realisation).
Acharadarsanat: because of the conduct found (from the scriptures).
The objection raised in Sutra 2 is strengthened.
Janaka the king of the Videhas performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed (Bri. Up. III.1.1). Sirs, I am going to perform a sacrifice (Chh. Up. V.11.5). These and similar passages indicate that those who know Brahman are connected with sacrificial action.
Janaka and Asvapati were knowers of Brahman. If they had attained the final emancipation by knowledge of Brahman there was no necessity for them to perform sacrifices. If mere knowledge could effect the purpose of man, why should they perform sacrifices troublesome in many respects? If a man would find honey in the Arka tree why should he go to the forest? But the two texts intimate that they did perform sacrifices.
This proves that one attains the final emancipation through sacrifices or works alone and not through the knowledge of Brahman, as the Vedantins maintain.
Tacchruteh III.4.4 (429)
Because scripture directly declares that (viz., that knowledge of Brahman stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial acts.)
Tat: that, that knowledge is subsidiary and supplementary to sacrifice; Sruteh: from Sruti, because the scriptures directly declare.
The Sruti also says that Vidya is an Anga of Karma.
If one does Karma with knowledge there will be greater efficiency. What a man does with knowledge, faith and meditation is more powerful (Chh. Up. I.1.10). This text clearly indicates that knowledge is a part of the sacrificial act. This passage directly states that knowledge is subordinate to work and from this it follows that mere knowledge cannot effect the purpose of man.
Samanvarambhanat III.4.5 (430)
Because the two (knowledge and work) go together (with the departing soul to give fruits of actions).
Samanvarambhanat: because of the accompanying together, as they jointly follow the sacrificer to produce their effects on account of their taking hold together or being together.
The objection begun in Sutra 2 is continued.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says The departing soul is followed by knowledge and work (Bri. Up. IV.4.2). This passage indicates that knowledge and work go together with the soul and begin together to manifest their fruits. Therefore, it follows that knowledge is not independent. It is not able to produce any such effect independently. It is concluded that knowledge is not independent of works or sacrificial acts.
Tadvato vidhanat III.4.6 (431)
Because (the scriptures) enjoin (works) for such (only who understand the purport of the Vedas).
Tadvatah: for such (as know the purport of the Vedas); Vidhanat: be cause (the scriptures) enjoin (work).
The objection, begun in the Sutra 2, is continued.
Further Karma is enjoined for one who recites and studies the Vedas. He who has learnt i.e., read the Vedas from a family of teachers, according to the sacred injunction in the leisure time left from the duties to be performed for the Guru; who after having received his discharge has settled in his own house, studying his sacred texts in some sacred spot (Chh. Up. VIII.15.7). Such passages also indicate that those who know the purport of the whole Veda are qualified for sacrificial acts and that hence knowledge does not independently produce any result.
Niyamaccha III.4.7 (432)
And on account of prescribed rules.
Niyamat: on account of prescribed rules, because of compulsory injunction; Cha: also, and.
The argument begun in Sutra 2 is concluded here.
Doing Karma is a Niyama or life-long commandment. Performing works here (i.e., in this life), let a man wish to live a hundred years (Isa. Up. 2). Agnihotra is a sacrifice lasting up to old age and death; for through old age one is freed from it or through death (Sat. Br. XII.4.1.1). From such definite rules also it follows that Knowledge is merely supple mentary to works, or stands in a subordinate relation to work .
The Sutrakara (Sri Vyasa) upholds his view in the following Sutra against all those objections.
Adhikopadesaattu baadarayanasyaivam taddarsanat III.4.8 (433)
But because (the scriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) other (than the agent), Baadarayana's view is correct (or valid) for that is seen thus (in scriptural passages).
Adhikopadesat: because (the sriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) something over and above; Tu: but; Baadarayanasya: of Baadarayana; Evam: thus, such (is the opinion); Taddarsanat: for that is seen (from the scrip tures). (Adhika: Supreme Being, more different; Upadesat: from the statement in Sruti, owing to the teaching about.)
Objections raised in Sutras 2 to 7 are now being refuted one by one. This Sutra refutes Sutra 2.
Sutras 2-7 give the view of the Mimamsakas which is refuted in Sutras 8-17.
The Sruti declares Isvara as higher than the individual soul. So Baadarayana's doctrine as stated in Sutra 1 is correct. The Sruti shows this. The real nature of the soul is divinity.
The word `tu' (but) discards the Purvapaksha. The Vedanta texts do not teach the limited self which is the agent. What the Vedanta texts really teach as the object of Knowledge is something different from the embodied self, viz., the non-transmigrating Lord who is free from all attributes of transmigrating existence such as agency and the like and distinguished by freedom from sin and so on, the Supreme Self.
The knowledge of such a self does not only not promote action but rather puts an end to all actions. Hence the view of the revered Baadarayana which was stated in Sutra 1 remains valid and cannot be shaken by fallacious reasoning about the subordination of knowledge to action and the like.
That the Vedanta texts teach the Supreme Self is clear from such texts as the following: He who perceives all and knows all (Mun. Up. I.1.9). From terror of it the wind blows, from terror the sun rises (Tait. Up. II.8). It is a great terror, a raised thunderbolt (Katha Up. II.6.2). By the command of that Imperishable one, O Gargi (Bri. Up. III.8.9). It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth fire (Chh. VI.2.3).
Tulyam tu darsanam III.4.9 (434)
But the declarations of the Sruti equally support both views.
Tulyam: the same, similar, equal; Tu: but; Darsanam: declaration of the Sruti.
This Sutra refutes the view expressed in Sutra 3. It is a reply to the third Sutra.
There are equal Srutis which show that Vidya is not Karmanga. The Sruti shows that Vidya is not Karmanga.
The word `tu' (but) is used in order to remove the idea that Vidya is subordinate to Karma. There is equal authority in the scriptures from the proposition that Vidya is not subordi nate to Karma, that for one who has attained knowledge there is no work. Thus there are scriptural passages such as: knowing this the Rishis descended from Kavasa said: For what purpose should we study the Vedas, for what purpose should we sacri fice? Knowing this indeed the ancient ones did not offer the Agnihotra, and when Brahmanas know that self and have risen above the desire for sons, wealth and worlds, they wander about as mendicants (Bri. Up. III.5).
Thus the sages called Kavaseyas did not care for Karma, nor did Yajnavalkya, who abandoning all Karmas went to forest. This much indeed is the means of Immortality, my dear, saying this Yajnavalkya left home (Bri. Up. IV.5.15). Thus we find examples of eminent men devoted to Vidya, renouncing all ceremonial actions. Therefore, scriptural texts are not all one-sided, in favour of Karmas, but there are passages to the contrary also. The examples of persons like Janaka and others indicate that these men followed Karma as an example to mankind, so that the social order may be pre served. Their work was characterised by non-attachment and therefore it was practically no work at all. Hence the argument of the Mimamsakas is weak.
There are indeed found in Srutis instances of sacrifices being performed by enlightened souls like Janaka, but there are also declarations of equal weight to the effect that performance of sacrifices is quite useless and redundant for the enlightened, i.e., those who have known Brahman.
So it cannot be asserted on the strength of the instances of Janaka and others like him, that knowledge is to be considered as secondary to the sacrifice.
With reference to the indicatory sign as to the dependence of knowledge to work, which is implied in the passage Sirs, I am going to perform a sacrifice we say, that it belongs to a section which treats of Vaisvanara.
Now the texts may declare that a Vidya of Brahman as limit ed by adjuncts is accompanied by works; but all the same the Vidya does not stand in a subordinate relation to works as the leading subject matter and the other means of proof are absent.
The author or Sutrakara (Baadarayana) next answers the objection raised in the Sutra 4.
Asarvatriki III.4.10 (435)
(The scriptural declaration referred to in Sutra 4) is not of universal application.
Asarvatriki: not universal, not applicable everywhere.
The refutation of the objections is continued. This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 4.
The statement of the Sruti referred to in Sutra 4 to the effect that the combination of meditation and sacrifice makes the sacrifice effective is not applicable everywhere. The above-mentioned statement of the Sruti does not refer to meditations in general, but only to the Udgitha Vidya which forms the subject matter of the discourse concerned.
The declaration of the Sruti that Knowledge increases the fruit of the sacrifice does not refer to all knowledge (all Vidyas), as it is connected only with the Udgitha (Udgitha Vidya) which is the topic of the section Let a man meditate on the syllable OM as the Udgitha.
The text says that if this Udgitha Vidya is recited by a person with knowledge, then it is more fruitful than if it is recited without such Vidya.
Therefore, Vidya is not an auxiliary to work in every instance.
The author next answers the objection raised in III.4.5.
Vibhagah satavat III.4.11 (436)
There is division of knowledge and work as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons).
Vibhagah: (there is) division of knowledge and work; Satavat: as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons).
This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 5.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares The departing soul is followed by Vidya (Knowledge) and Karma (work) and past experiences (IV.4.2). Here we have to take knowledge and work in a distributive sense. It means the knowledge follows one and work another. Just as when we say, Give Rs. 100 to Rama and Krishna it means Give Rs. 50 to Rama and Rs. 50 to Krishna, the above passage means that the Vidya relates to the souls seeking emancipation and Karma to other souls. There is no combination of the two.
The text quoted refers only to knowledge and work which concern the soul that transmigrates but not the soul which is about to obtain final release. Because the passage, Thus does the man who desires to transmigrate (Bri. Up. IV.4.6) indicates that the previous text refers to the soul that transmigrates. The Sruti declares of the soul who is about to be released, But the man who never desires never transmigrates (Bri. Up. IV.4.6).
The next Sutra refutes the Sutra 6.
Adhyayanamatravatah III.4.12 (437)
(The scriptures enjoin work) on those who have merely read the Vedas.
Adhyayanamatravatah: of one who has merely read the Vedas.
This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 6.
He who has read the Vedas and known about the sacrifices is entitled to do sacrifice. But no work is prescribed for one who has knowledge of Brahman (Brahma Jnana).
Naviseshat III.4.13 (438)
There being no specification (the rule does) not (specially apply to him who knows, i. e., a Jnani).
Na: not, compulsion does not apply; Aviseshat: on account of the absence of any specification, because there is no special mention.
This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 7.
The Sruti Kurvanneveha performing works here let a man live etc., of the Isavasya Upanishad does not specially apply to a Brahma Jnani. It is general in its terms. There is no special mention in it that it is applicable to a Jnani also. It is not binding on a Jnani when there is no specification.
The Sruti of the Isavasya does not lay down any such restrictive rule that even the illumined sage must perform Karma throughout his life. Why so? Aviseshat. Because there is no specification. All that it says is Let one perform Karmas throughout his life. There is nothing to show to which class of people, that particular rule is addressed. On the other hand there are express texts of the Srutis which show that immortality is not to be obtained by Karmas, but by knowledge alone.
Mahanarayana Upanishad of the Tait. Ar. X.5 declares Not by Karmas (sacrifices), not by progeny, nor by wealth can one obtain immortality. It is by renunciation alone that some great souled beings have obtained immortality.
The apparent conflict in the two Sruti texts is to be recon ciled by giving them different scopes. One is addressed to Karma-nishtha-devotees, the other to the Jnana-nishtha- devotees.
Stutaye'numatirva III.4.14 (439)
Or rather the permission (to do work) is for the glorification (of knowledge).
Stutaye: for the purpose of glorification (of knowledge); Anumatih: permission; Va: or, rather.
This Sutra also refutes Sutra 7.
The passage performing works here may be treated in another way also. The injunction to do work for the knowers of Brahman or the illumined sages is for eulogising this knowledge. A Brahma Jnani or knower of the Self may work all his life but he will not be bound by its effects, on account of the power of knowledge. Knowledge nullifies the effect of Karma. No work clings to the man. This clearly glorifies Knowledge.
Kamakarena chaike III.4.15 (440)
And some according to their own liking (have abandoned all works).
Kamakarena: according to their own liking; Cha: and; Eke: some.
The argument in refutation of Jaimini's views is continued.
In Sutra 3 it was stated that Janaka and others performed sacrifices even after attaining knowledge of Brahman. This Sutra says that some have abandoned all works according to their own liking. Some may like to work to set an example to others after attaining knowledge, while others may abandon all works. There is no compulsion on the knowers of Brahman or liberated sages as regards work.
A scripfural text of the Vajasaneyins runs as follows: Know ing this the people of old did not wish for offspring. What shall we do with offspring, they said, we who have this self and this world (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). From this it follows that know ledge is not subordinate to action and that the scriptural state ments as to the fruit of knowledge cannot be taken in any but their true sense.
Upamardam cha III.4.16 (441)
And (scripture teaches that the) destruction (of all qualifi cations for work results from knowledge).
Upamardam: complete destruction, putting an end to all actions; Cha: and.
The previous argument is continued.
Further, such knowledge brings the realisation that every thing is Atman or Brahman. How then can the knower act?
Again, far from being a part of work, knowledge puts an end to all works, all obligatory duties. Mundaka Upanishad declares, Brahman in both His superior and inferior aspects being realised, the knot of the heart (egoism, etc.) is cut down, all doubts are dispelled and works are destroyed (Mun. Up. II.2.9).
Knowledge of Brahman annihilates all ignorance and its effects like agent, deed and fruit, But when to the Knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what? (Bri. Up. IV.5.15). The know ledge of Brahman is antagonistic to all actions. Hence it cannot be subsidiary to work. It is independent.
Urdhvaretassu cha sabde hi III.4.17 (442)
And (knowledge belongs) to those who observe perpetual celibacy, because in scripture (that stage of life is mentioned).
Urdhvaretassu: to those who observe perpetual celibacy, in those stages of life where the sexual energy has an upward flow; Cha: and; Sabde: in the Sruti; Hi: because.
The previous argument is continued.
Further the Sruti declares Jnana in relation to Sannyasins. Knowledge is said to be in Sannyasins. They have not to do any Karmas. Such Sannyasa can be taken even without going through the householder's life.
Scripture shows that knowledge is valid also for the stages of life for which perpetual celibacy is prescribed. Now in their case knowledge cannot be subordinate to work, because work is absent, because the works prescribed by Vedas such as the Agnihotra are not performed by men who have reached those stages. To a Sannyasin there is no work prescribed except enquiry of Brahman and meditation on the Supreme Self. So how can knowledge be subordinate to work?
We find from the Sruti texts that there is a stage of life called Sannyasa. There are three branches of duty (Chh. Up. II.23.1). Those who in the forest practise faith and austerity (Chh. Up. V.10.1). Those who practise penance and faith in the forest (Mun. Up. I.10.11). Wishing for that world only, mendicants renounce their homes and wander forth (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). Let him wander forth at once from the state of studentship. All these attain to the worlds of the virtuous; but only one who is finally established in Brahman, attains immortality. (Chh. Up. II.23. 1-2).
Everyone can take to this life, without being a householder etc. This indicates the independence of knowledge.
Thus, the theory of Jaimini that Knowledge is subordinate to Karma has no legs to stand upon, and has been refuted.
Paramarsadhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutras 18-20)
Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures
Paramarsam jaiminirachodana chapavadati hi III.4.18 (443)
Jaimini (considers that scriptural texts mentioning those stages of life in which celibacy is obligatory, contain) a reference (only to those stages; they are not injunctions; because other (scriptural texts) condemn (those stages).
Paramarsam: a passing allusion, mere reference; Jaiminih: Jaimini; Achodana: there is no clear injunction; Cha: and; Apavadati: condemns; Hi: because, clearly, certainly.
An objection to Sutra 17 is raised.
Stutimatradhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 21-22)
Scriptural texts as in Chh. Up. I.1.3. which refer to Vidyas are not mere praises but themselves enjoin the meditations
Stutimatramupadanaditi chennapurvatvat III.4.21 (446)
If it be said that (texts such as the one about the Udgitha are) mere glorifications on account of their reference (to parts of sacrifices), (we say) not so, on account of the newness (of what they teach, if viewed as injunctions).
Stutimatram: mere praise; Upadanat: on account of their reference (to parts of sacrificial acts); Iti: thus, so; Chet: if; Na: not so; Apurvatvat: on account of its newness. (Iti chet: if it be said).
This Sutra consists ot two parts, namely an objection and its reply. The objection portion is: `Stutimatramupadanaditi chet', and the reply portion is: `Na apurvatvat'.
That Udgitha (OM) is the best of all essences, the highest, holding the highest place, the eighth (Chh. Up. I.1.3). This earth is the Rik, the fire is Saman (Chh. Up. I.6.1). This world in truth is that piled up fire-altar (Sat. Br. X.1.2.2). That hymn is truly that earth (Ait. Ar. II.1.2.1).
A doubt arises whether these passages are meant to glorify the Udgitha or to enjoin devout meditations.
The Purvapakshin maintains that these are mere praise and no injunction to meditate on `OM' and so on. These passages are analogous to passages such as This earth is the ladle. The sun is the tortoise. The heavenly world is the Ahavaniya which simply glorify the ladle and so on.
The latter half of the present Sutra refutes the view of the opponent.
In the Sruti passage That Udgitha (OM) is the best essence of the essences etc., the description is not mere praise but is a Vidhi, and it tells us something which is new.
The analogy is incorrect. Glorificatory passages are of use in so far as entering into a complimentary relation to injunctive passages, but the passages under discussion are not capable of entering into such a relation to the Udgitha and so on which are enjoined in altogether different places of the Vedas and would be purposeless as far as the glorification is concerned. Passages such as This earth is the ladle are not analogous because they stand in proximity to injunctive passages, and so they can be taken as praise.
Therefore, the texts such as those under discussion have an injunctive purpose. On account of the newness, these are not mere praise but an injunction.
Bhavasabdaccha III.4.22 (447)
And there being words expressive of injunction.
Bhavasabaat: from words indicative of existence of injunction in Sruti; Cha: and, also, moreover.
The argument commenced in Sutra 21 is concluded.
Let one meditate on OM or the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). We have a very clear injunction to meditate on OM in this passage. On the face of this we cannot interpret the text quoted in the last Sutra as mere praise of OM. The expression This is the best of all the essences in the passage cited under the preceding Sutra is not a mere glorificatory expression, but it amounts to an injunction for the Udgitha meditation.
Pariplavadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutras 23-24)
The stories mentioned in the Upanishads do not serve the purpose of Pariplavas and so do not form part of the ritualistic acts.
They are meant to euloisge the Vidya taught in them
Pariplavartha iti chenna viseshitatvat III.4.23 (448)
If it be said (that the stories told in the Upanishads) are for the purpose of Pariplava (only, we say) not so, because (certain stories above) are specified (by the Sruti for this purpose).
Pariplavarthah: for the purpose of Pariplavas; Iti: so; Chet: if; Na: not so; Viseshitatvat: because of specification, on account of (certain stories alone) being specified. (Iti chet: if it be said.)
The purpose of narration of stories in the Upanishads is stated in this Sutra and in the next one.
This Sutra consists of two parts namely, an objection and its reply. The objection portion is `Pariplavartha iti chet'. And the reply is: `Na viseshitatvat'.
In the Asvamedha sacrifice the priest recites stories to the king who performs the Asvamedha sacrifice, and his relatives at intervals during the performance of the sacrifice. These are known as Pariplavas and form part of the ritualistic acts.
The question is whether the stories of the Upanishads such as those relating to Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi (Bri. Up. IV.5.1), Pratardana (Kau. Up. III.1), Janasruti (Chh. Up. IV.1.1), and so on also serve this purpose in which case they become part of the rites, and the whole of Jnana Kanda becomes subordinate to Karma Kanda.
The Purvapakshin holds that those stories of the Upanishads serve the purpose of Pariplava, because they are stories like others and because the telling of stories is enjoined for the Pariplava. From this it follows that the Upanishadic stories and Vedanta texts do not chiefly aim at knowledge, because like Mantras they stand in a complimentary relation to sacrificial acts.
Tatha chaikavakyatopabandhat III.4.24 (449)
And so (they are meant to illustrate the nearest Vidyas), being connected as one coherent whole.
Tatha: so, similarly; Cha: and; Ekavakyatopabandhat: being connected as one whole. (Ekavakya: unity cf construction or of statements or that of sense; Upabandhat: because of connection.)
The discussion commenced in Sutra 23 is concluded here.
Therefore, it is for the purpose of praise of Vidya because only then there would be unity of idea in the context. Only such a view will lead to harmony of the context.
The stories of the Upanishads are to be regarded as essential parts of Brahma Vidya. They are introduced only to facilitate an intelligent grouping of the subject. The stories are intended to introduce the Vidyas. The story form creates more attention and interest on the part of the aspirant. Their object is to make it clear to our understanding in a concrete form, the Vidyas taught in other portions of the Upanishads in the abstract.
Why do we say so? Ekavakyatopabandhat. Because of their syntactical connection with the Vidyas taught in the succeeding passages.
Thus in the story beginning with Yajnavalkya had two wives, etc., we find immediately following in that very section, the Vidya taught about the Atman in these words The Atman is verily to be seen, to be heard of, to be meditated upon. As these stories are immediately preceded or succeeded by instructions about Brahman, we infer that they are meant to glorify the Vidyas and are not Pariplava stories. The stories are told in order to facilitate the understanding of these abstruse subjects and they are eminently fitted to subserve that purpose.
Agnindhanadyadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutra 25)
Sannyasins need not observe ritualistic acts, as Brahma Vidya or knowledge serves their purpose
Ata eva chagnindhanadyanapeksha III.4.25 (450)
And, therefore, there is no necessity of the lighting of the fire and so on.
Ata eva: therefore, only, for this reason only; Cha: and, also; Agni: fire; Indhanadi: fire-wood, and so on, kindling fire and performing sacrifices, etc.; Anapeksha: no need, has not to be depended upon. (Agni-indhanadi-anapeksha: no necessity of lighting fires, etc.)
This Sutra states that the seeker of Brahman may dispense with sacrificial rites.
Sarvapekshadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 26-27)
Works prescribed by the scriptures are means to the attainment of knowledge
Sarvapeksha cha yajnadi sruterasvavat III.4.26 (451)
And there is the necessity of all works because the scriptures prescribe sacrifices, etc., (as means to the attainment of knowledge) even as the horse (is used to draw a chariot, and not for ploughing).
Sarvapeksha: there is the necessity of all works; Cha: and; Yajnadisruteh: for the scriptures prescribe sacrifices, etc., (as means to knowledge); Asvavat: like a horse, as in the case of the horse.
The Sutra says that sacrificial works and the like are necessary for origination of knowledge of Brahman.
Sarvannanumatyadhikaranam: Topic 7 (Sutras 28-31)
Food-restrictions may be given up only when life is in danger
Sarvannanumatischa pranatyaye taddarsanat III.4.28 (453)
Only when life is in danger (there is) permission to take all food (i.e., take food indiscriminately) because the Sruti declares that.
Sarvannanumatih: permission to take all sorts of food; Cha: only; Prana tyaye: when life is in danger; Taddarsanat: because the Sruti declares that.
This and the subsequent three Sutras indicate what kind of food is to be taken.
Ashramakarmadhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 32-35)
The duties of Asrama are to be performed by even one who is not desirous of salvation
Vihitatvacchasramakarmapi III.4.32 (457)
And the duties of the Asramas (are to be performed also by him who does not desire emancipation) because they are enjoined (on him by the scriptures).
Vihitatvat: because they are enjoined; Cha: and; Asrama- karma: duties of the Asrama, or order of life; Api: also.
This and the subsequent three Sutras show who are required to perform sacrifices and do other prescribed duties.
Vidhuradhikaranam: Topic 9 (Sutras 36-39)
Those who stand midway between two Asramas also are qualified for knowledge
Antara chapi tu taddrishteh III.4.36 (461)
And (persons standing) in between (two Asramas) are also (qualified for knowledge), for that is seen (in scripture).
Antara: (persons standing) in between (two Asramas); Cha: and; Api tu: also; Taddrishteh: such cases being seen, (as it is seen in Sruti, because it is so seen).
Widowers who have not married again, persons who are too poor to marry and those who are forced by circumstances not to enter into wedlock and have not renounced the world come under the purview of Sutras 36-39.
Tadbhutadhikaranam: Topic 10 (Sutra 40)
He who has taken Sannyasa cannot revert back to his former stages of life
Tadbhutasya tu natadbhavo jaiminerapi
niyamatadrupabhavebhyah III.4.40 (465)
But for one who has become that (i.e. entered the highest Asrama, i.e., Sannyasa) there is no reverting (to the preced ing ones) on account of restrictions prohibiting such reversion or descending to a lower order. Jaimini also (is of this opinion).
Tadbhutasya: of one who has become that, for one who has attained that (highest Asrama); Tu: but; Na: no; Atadbhavah: lapse from that stage, falling away from that; Jaimineh: according to Jaimini, of Jaimini (is this opinion); Api: also, even; Niyamatadrupabhavebhyah: on account of the restrictions prohibiting such reversion. (Niyamat: because of the strict rule; Atadrupdbhavebhyah: because there is no statement permitting it, and because it is against custom; Abhavebhyah: because of the absence of that.)
The question whether one who has taken Sannyasa can go back to the previous Asrama is now considered.
Adhikaradhikaranam: Topic 11 (Sutras 41-42)
Expiation for one who has broken the vow of Sannyasa Na chadhikarikamapi patananumanattadayogat III.4.41 (466)
And there is no fitness for expiation in the case of a Naishthika Brahmacharin (who is immoral), because a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smriti and because of the inefficacy (in his case) of the expiatory ceremony.
Na: not; Cha: and; Adhikarikam: (expiation) mentioned in the chapter that deals with the qualification; Api: also, even; Patananumanat: because of a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smriti; Tadayogat: because of its (of the expiatory ceremony) inefficiency in his case.
The previous discussion is continued.
Bahiradhikaranam: Topic 12 (Sutra 43)
The life-long celibate who fails to keep up his vow must be excluded by society.
Bahistubhayathapi smriteracharaccha III.4.43 (468)
But (they are to be kept) outside the society in either case, on account of the Smriti and custom.
Bahih: outside; Tu: but; Ubhayatha: in either case, whether it be a grave sin or a minor sin; Api: also, even; Smriteh: on account of the state ment of the Smriti, from the Smriti; Acharat: from custom; Cha: and.
The previous discussion is concluded here.
Svamyadhikaranam: Topic 13 (Sutras 44-46)
The meditations connected with the subordinate members of sacrificial acts (Yajnangas) should be observed by the priest and not by the sacrificer.
Svaminah phalasruterityatreyah III.4.44 (469)
To the sacrificer (belongs the agentship in meditations) because the Sruti declares a fruit (for it): thus Atreya (holds).
Svaminah: of the master, of the sacrificer or Yajamana; Phalasruteh: from the declaration in Sruti of the results; Iti: so, thus; Atreyah: the sage Atreya (holds).
This is the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent.
Sahakaryantaravidhyadhikaranam: Topic 14 (Sutras 47-49)
In Bri. Up. III.5.1 meditation is enjoined besides the child-like state and scholarship
Sahakaryantaravidhih pakshena tritiyam
tadvato vidhyadivat III.4.47 (472)
There is the injunction of something else, i.e., meditation, cooperation (towards knowledge) (which is) a third thing (with regard to Balya or state of a child and Panditya or scholarship), (which injunction is given) for the case (of per fect knowledge not yet having arisen) to him who is such (i.e., the Sannyasin possessing knowledge); as in the case of injunctions, and the like.
Sahakaryantaravidhih: a separate auxiliary injunction; Pakshena: as an alternative; Tritiyam: the third; Tadvatah: for one who possesses it, (i.e., knowledge); Vidhyadivat: just as in the case of injunctions and the like.
This Sutra examines a passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and concludes that continuous meditation is also to be considered as enjoined by Sruti for the realisation of Brahman. This and the following two Sutras show that the scripture enjoins the four orders of life.
Anavishkaradhikarnam: Topic 15 (Sutra 50)
Child-like state means the state of innocence, being free from egoism, lust, anger, etc.
Anavishkurvannanvayat III.4.50 (475)
(The child-like state means) without manifesting himself, according to the context.
Anavishkurvan: without manifesting himself; Ananvayat: according to the context.
This Sutra says that the perversity of a child is not meant by the word `Balyena' (by the child-like state), in the passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quoted under Sutra 47.
Aihikadhikaranam: Topic 16 (Sutra 51)
The time of the origination of knowledge when Brahma Vidya is practised
Aihikamapyaprastutapratibandhe taddarsanat III.4.51 (476)
In this life (the origination of knowledge takes place) if there be no obstruction to it (the means adopted), because it is so seen from the scriptures.
Aihikam: in this life; Api: even; Aprastutapratibandhe: in the absence of an obstruction to it (the means adopted); Taddarsanat: as it is seen in Sruti. (Aprastuta: not being present; Pratibandhe: obstruction; Tat: that; Darsanat: being declared by the scriptures.)
This Sutra states whether the consequence of Brahma Vidya, which is the realisation of Brahman, is possible in this life or will wait till death.
Muktiphaladhikaranam: Topic 17 (Sutra 52)
Liberation is a state without difference. It is only one.
Evam muktiphalaniyamastadavasthavadhrites-
tadavasthavadhriteh III.4.52 (477)
No such definite rule exists with respect to emancipation, the fruit (of knowledge), because the Sruti asserts that state (to be immutable).
Evam: thus, like this; Muktiphalaniyamah: there is no rule with respect to the final emancipation, the fruit (of knowledge); Tadavasthavadhriteh: on account of the assertions by the Sruti as to that condition. (Mukti: salvation; Phala: fruit; Aniyamah: there is no rule; Tat: that; Avastha: condition; Avadhriteh: because the Sruti has ascertained so.)
In the previous Sutra it was seen that knowledge may result in this life or the next according to the absence or presence of obstructions and the intensity of the means adopted.
---------------------
Chapter Three: Sadhana Adhyaya – Table of Contents
Section 1 (Sutras 292-318)
Introduction and Synopsis
Tadantarapratipattyadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutras 1-7)
Kritatyayadhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutras 8-11)
Anishtadikaryadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 12-21)
Sabhavyapattyadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutra 22)
Natichiradhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutra 23)
Anyadhisthitadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 24-27)
Section 2 (Sutras 319-359)
Introduction and Synopsis
Sandhyadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutras 1-6)
Tadabhavadhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutras 7-8)
Karmanusmritisabdavidhyadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutra 9)
Mugdhe'rdhasampattyadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutra 10)
Ubhayalingadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutras 11-21)
Prakritaitavattvadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 22-30)
Paradhikaranam: Topic 7 (Sutras 31-37)
Phaladhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 38-41)
Section 3 (Sutras 360-425)
Introduction and Synopsis
Sarvavedantapratyayadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutras 1-4)
Upasamharadhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutra 5)
Anyathatvadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 6-8)
Vyaptyadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutra 9)
Sarvabhedadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutra 10)
Anandadyadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 11-13)
Adhyanadhikaranam: Topic 7 (Sutras 14-15)
Atmagrihityadhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 16-17)
Karyakhyanadhikaranam: Topic 9 (Sutra 18)
Samanadhikaranam: Topic 10 (Sutra 19)
Sambandhadhikaranam: Topic 11 (Sutras 20-22)
Sambhrityadhikaranam: Topic 12 (Sutra 23)
Purushavidyadhikaranam: Topic 13 (Sutra 24)
Vedhadyadhikaranam: Topic 14 (Sutra 25)
Hanyadhikaranam: Topic 15 (Sutra 26)
Samparayadhikaranam: Topic 16 (Sutras 27-28)
Gaterarthavattvadhikaranam: Topic 17 (Sutras 29-30)
Aniyamadhikaranam: Topic 18 (Sutra 31)
Yavadadhikaradhikaranam: Topic 19 (Sutra 32)
Aksharadhyadhikaranam: Topic 20 (Sutra 33)
Iyadadhikaranam: Topic 21 (Sutra 34)
Antaratvadhikaranam: Topic 22 (Sutras 35-36)
Vyatiharadhikaranam: Topic 23 (Sutra 37)
Satyadyadhikaranam: Topic 24 (Sutra 38)
Kamadyadhikaranam: Topic 25 (Sutra 39)
Adaradhikaranam: Topic 26 (Sutras 40-41)
Tannirdharanadhikaranam: Topic 27 (Sutra 42)
Pradanadhikaranam: Topic 28 (Sutra 43)
Lingabhuyastvadhikaranam: Topic 29 (Sutras 44-52)
Aikatmyadhikaranam: Topic 30 (Sutras 53-54)
Angavabaddhadhikaranam: Topic 31 (Sutras 55-56)
Bhumajyayastvadhikaranam: Topic 32 (Sutra 57)
Sabdadibhedadhikaranam: Topic 33 (Sutra 58)
Vikalpadhikaranam: Topic 34 (Sutra 59)
Kamyadhikaranam: Topic 35 (Sutra 60)
Yathasrayabhavadhikaranam: Topic 36 (Sutras 61-66)
Section 4 (Sutras 426-477)
Introduction and Synopsis
Purusharthadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutra 1-17)
Paramarsadhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutras 18-20)
Stutimatradhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 21-22)
Pariplavadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutras 23-24)
Agnindhanadyadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutra 25)
Sarvapekshadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 26-27)
Sarvannanumatyadhikaranam: Topic 7 (Sutras 28-31)
Ashramakarmadhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 32-35)
Vidhuradhikaranam: Topic 9 (Sutras 36-39)
Tadbhutadhikaranam: Topic 10 (Sutra 40)
Adhikaradhikaranam: Topic 11 (Sutras 41-42)
Bahiradhikaranam: Topic 12 (Sutra 43)
Svamyadhikaranam: Topic 13 (Sutras 44-46)
Sahakaryantaravidhyadhikaranam: Topic 14 (Sutras 47-49)
Anavishkaradhikarnam: Topic 15 (Sutra 50)
Aihikadhikaranam: Topic 16 (Sutra 51)
Muktiphaladhikaranam: Topic 17 (Sutra 52)
ud. 18.10.2026
pub. 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment