4. Explanation of the remaining portion of the ritual recitation. (शस्त्रशेषव्याख्यानम्)
With abundant insight, he repeatedly seeks to please Indu, who gladdens the hero, with your nourishment called triṣṭubh, for the accomplishment of your sacrifice. (1)
“Pra pra” is “for you”—O officiating priests, or subjects. Indra, the Supreme Lord, makes pleasing for Soma the food called Triṣṭubh. With puraṃdhī, that is, with his own intelligence present in the bodies of all living beings, “pra pra” means “with excellence upon excellence”: being praised to the utmost degree, Triṣṭubh produces pleasure for the purpose of drinking Soma. This is the meaning. Soma is called mandadvīra because he produces delight for that hero, the Supreme Lord. He does not produce pleasure for his own purpose, but rather for your attainment of the sacrifice, that is, for the accomplishment of the sacrifice. Alternatively, owing to venerability and the like, “you” may be a plural referring specifically to the Lord. In that case, the meaning is: “Your Reverence makes your food, Triṣṭubh, exceedingly pleasing for the attainment of your sacrifice—that is, for accomplishing a sacrifice having you as its deity.”
You seek the roaring bull of your moist ones, the roaring bull of your ever-young ones, the lord of your inviolable milk-cows. (2)
Toward your sound-maker …
With respect to the lord of the moistening ones—the waters belonging to you that cause wetting—namely, your Puruṣa, Prāṇa, the sound-maker who produces sound, you exercise lordship; you become lord. “At each creation, you become lord with respect to each respective Prāṇa”: with this sense, “the sound-maker” is stated again. Of those constantly moving, those disposed to motion and floating about in the sky; of the inviolable ones, unburnable in the form of smoke or undecaying in the form of seed; of the cows that nourish the world.
“Dhinu,” in the sense of nourishment…
Thus, from the verbal root…
“He varies those with a resounding sound.” — Aitareya Āraṇyaka 1/3/5
On account of this and similar Śruti passages.
Or: “You shoot arrows at Vāyu, the lord of the cattle—the milk cows that sprinkle with milk, habitually go from one place to another, and are inviolable, unfit to be killed.”
“Vāyu indeed is the lord of the cows.”
because the śruti states thus.
And from the word “dhenu.”
Or, addressed to Vāyu, the lord of utterances that bedew through devotion, most fully impart comprehension of the reality of the self, are inviolable and eternal cows, and nourish dharma, artha, kāma, and mokṣa: “You become the lord.”
“One should meditate upon speech as a cow. She has four teats: the svāhā formula, the vaṣaṭ formula, the hanta formula, and the svadhā formula. The gods live upon two of her teats, the svāhā formula and the vaṣaṭ formula; human beings live upon the hanta formula; the ancestors live upon the svadhā formula. The vital breath is her bull, and the mind is her calf.” — Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 7/10/1
From scriptural passages such as this.
Those speckled peoples, yielding nourishment as milk for him, mix Soma at the birth of the gods, throughout the three luminous realms of heaven. (3)
“Those”: those spotted ones—the waters, cows, or utterances—mix Soma for this Sūdadōhas, Prāṇa, the Supreme Lord abiding in Vāyu. For Soma becomes mixed with waters, or is heard through milk and the like, or is apprehended through mantras.
“Now, the Sūdadōhas: the vital breath is indeed the Sūdadōhas.” — Aitareya Aranyaka 1/4/1
Thus also says the revealed text.
“Sūdadōhāḥ” is so called because it yields excellent udam—action or knowledge. “Udam” is knowledge and the like, by which a person rises, that is, becomes elevated.
The mind, indeed, is Soma.
The utterances mix that with their own meanings. The utterances are called pṛśni because they are fit for questioning—because they have the nature of praise, or because they are praiseworthy. In the case of the waters and cows, it is praiseworthiness alone. At the birth of the gods—that is, in the sacrifice; for there indeed they become manifest. Or first in cognition. The clans and the subjects mix it. Since principally they alone mix it, the word ca is omitted. At the birth of the gods stationed in heaven’s three luminous regions, extending through the sun, moon, and lightning.
“Sacrifice is indeed the birth of the gods, for there the gods become manifest, up to the sun and moon and up to lightning; they indeed have taken their stations in the worlds.”
Because of the scriptural passage beginning thus.
“Heaven indeed is lightning. Having reached Vāyu, its lord, it reaches the Supreme through him alone. This very one shines in Brahmaloka.”
On the basis of this and similar Śruti passages, heaven itself is lightning.
Worship; worship fully, O Priyamedhas, worship. Let the little sons also worship; like a formidable fortress, worship… (4)
Worship. Worship is sacrifice and the like; preeminent worship is knowledge, meditation, and the like.
“The sacrifice of knowledge is superior to a sacrifice consisting of material substances, O scorcher of foes.” — Bhagavad Gītā 4/33
Thus, on the basis of the Lord’s statement.
You to whom sacrifice is dear, worship; you to whom knowledge is dear, worship greatly. Dear children, even you who have little knowledge, worship.
“The knowledgeable person, disciplined and himself duly performing the actions, should not cause a disruption in the understanding of the ignorant who are attached to action; he should cause them to engage in all actions.” — Bhagavad Gītā 3/26
And thus.
From the word uta, worship is appropriate even for those who possess knowledge, in accordance with their own āśrama.
“Now, O Viṣṇu, even by one who knows, your hymn of praise is to be offered, and the sacrifice is to be accomplished by one possessing an oblation.” — Rigveda Saṃhitā 1/156/1
Thus, because scripture states.
What, then, is to be worshipped? The daring, bold Supreme Brahman called Vāsudeva. Do not worship the city—the body.
“O slender-waisted one, mutual rising to meet, respectful bowing, and salutation are rightly prescribed by the wise, with the mind, for the Supreme Person alone who dwells in the heart-cave, not for one who identifies with the body.” — Bhāgavatam 4/3/22
Thus in the Bhāgavata.
One who identifies with the body should, at any rate, bow to Hari alone, but never to the body or in any way to one intent on identifying with it.
Thus, in the Vyāsa Smṛti.
Again, “Worship!”—in the intended sense.
Gargara sounds forth; Godhā has resounded all around; Piṅgā has rattled all around. Raise a sacred formulation for Indra. (5)
He says that even the sounds of Gargara, Godhā, Piṅgā, and the like, by virtue of manifesting mere sound, are indeed designative of Bhagavān, through the passage beginning, “Gargara sounds forth downward.”
All this is for Indra alone—this is the meaning. The brahman—the Veda—is especially directed to Indra alone. Gargara is a name for an anklet, a large water jar, a curd vessel, and an elephant’s trunk. Piṅgā is the cakori bird. Ava and pari are for making known that even distinctions such as diminution and augmentation denote Him alone. Caniṣkadat is an onomatopoeic word. Saniṣvaṇat has an intensive sense.
“Indeed, all these Ṛg-verses, all the Vedas, and all sounds are one single utterance: prāṇa alone. One should know only thus: ‘Prāṇa is the Ṛg-verses.’” — Aitareya Āraṇyaka 2/2/2
Thus says the Śruti.
The sound of churning curd, too, because it has the form of an inner resonance, would express Hari’s terrifying character; for an inner resonance occurs in what is terrifying. An elephant’s trumpeting, likewise, when accompanied by a reproachful cry, would express it because of its conjunction with the svarita accent, since an utterance of reproach is svarita-accented. A large vessel containing water and the like would express something of this kind. An ornament of the foot would also utter a svarita-accented reproachful cry produced by it. Piṅgā expresses Hari’s wondrousness, like a throat-produced sound. The other one, the house lizard, also expresses that very wondrousness.
Thus, in the Śabdatattva.
When the dappled rivers, good milkers that do not kick away, rush hither, seize the kicking-away Soma for Indra to drink. (6)
And when the Enya rivers rush toward, the sound thereof also denotes Indra.
The sounds of rivers and the ocean, because they are nāda, denote superiority. For nāda indeed would denote superiority; likewise, the other sounds too.
Thus.
And for that purpose, the rivers flow into it.
Hari, the primal source of beings, being situated in the midst of the ocean, destroys all and reduces the unfathomable water to ash by his surpassing radiance. That submarine fire is to be contemplated as Nṛhari.
Thus, in the Vaihāyasa Saṃhitā.
The good milkers are those that perform the milking of the waters well. Since cessation of movement does not exist in them, they are not ceasing to move, having perpetual motion as their nature. Take hold of Soma because his movement has ceased, or of the mind because of its immobility.
He who expanded the surpassing, well-yoked gods near the worshipper is the speeding leader; that very form is a likeness—the one who was released. (7)
“The surpassing ones”: the gods who are superior in a distinctive respect. “He caused to expand”: he made them expand. “For the giver”: for the sacrificer. In his vicinity.
“Phaṇ, in the sense of expansion …”
from the verbal root thus stated.
Those properly engaged, those devoted to excellent yoga.
“Because of their being superior in a distinctive way, the deities are known as vyatayas. They are continually engaged in yoga and wholly devoted to Nārāyaṇa. Those very ones are the selves of the faculties, and the Lord expands them. But in the case of the faculties beginning with the mind, however, the expansion of the deities effected by Hari in devotees would be only an expansion of power.”
Thus, in the Prakāśa Saṃhitā.
“Together with four names, he set the ninety passing ones in motion like a rounded wheel.” — Ṛgveda Saṃhitā 1/155
Thus says the Śruti.
“May that Indra fill me with intelligence. O god, may I become a bearer of immortality. May my body be vigorous and my tongue most honeyed. May I hear much with both ears.” — Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1/7
And thus.
“The gods do not protect by taking up a staff, as a herdsman does. But whomever they wish to protect, they unite that person with understanding.” — Bhārata 5/35/51
Thus it is stated in the Bhārata.
Takva is the creator of the world.
“The verbal root tak is used in the sense of making.”
From the verbal root stated thus.
“The onward impulse, sped by the outflow, is not to be turned back.” — Ṛgveda Saṃhitā 3/33/4
And also because of such and similar usage.
He is also the ruler of all. That very body is he: that which is the form of the creator and ruler of the world.
There is nowhere in the Supreme Lord either a distinction between the body and its indweller or a distinction between a quality and its possessor, because of the scriptural declaration, “There is no plurality here.”
Thus, in the Padma Purāṇa.
“Through knowledge of that, the wise fully behold the immortal, whose nature is bliss, which shines forth.” — Ātharvaṇopaniṣat 2/2/10
Whose body is reality, whose fragrance is bliss, whose radiance is knowledge, whose prowess is real, who is the knowledge of knowledge and the bliss of bliss—he is Viṣṇu, the supreme Imperishable.
And because of scriptural revelation such as this.
The Lord, whose form is perpetual bliss, is adorned with a garland of rays of pure knowledge, shining with an array of variegated jewels and revealing the nature of the entire universe.
Thus, in the Puruṣottama Saṃhitā.
“In comparison,” that is, “in the domain of comparison,” he was released—he became one left aside. The meaning is “incomparable.”
If, though it is possible to express it in few syllables, it is expressed in many, then here, in a negation, what is uttered would be entirely redundant.
Thus, in the Śabdanirṇaya.
Mighty Indra indeed carries them across, beyond all enemies. The supreme youth split apart, by speech, the rice dish being cooked. (8)
Having passed beyond “all”—all adversaries such as ignorance, sin, and the like—the powerful Viṣṇu certainly carries his own devotees across.
He is attainable only by the one whom he chooses; to that one this Self reveals his own form. — Ātharvaṇopaniṣat 3/2/3
“For those whose minds are fixed on me, O Pārtha, I become, before long, the deliverer from the ocean of death and transmigration.” — Bhagavad Gītā 12/7
By the syllable “u,” he states the teaching established by this and similar passages.
“Having gone beyond his enemies, he warded them off from himself exceedingly”: this is the meaning of the two occurrences of the word ati. Odana, derived from undati, is karmic bondage. The Lord, the maiden-born Bādarāyaṇa, the transcendent Supreme Self, broke that bondage apart at the time of full maturation, while it was being brought to maturation by speech alone.
For the Blessed Lord Vyāsa utterly shattered the karma of his own devotees—the odana owing to conjunction—as it was being brought to fruition by speech alone.
Thus, in the Vyāsa Saṃhitā.
Like a child, the base slayer mounted a new chariot, taking along for the father and mother the buffalo, the wild beast of manifold intelligence. (9)
He was situated like an infant. He mounted a new chariot. Kumāraka means “slayer of the vile.” Subtle-bodied like an infant, having abandoned each preceding body, he occupied each new body, taking the jīva along.
Having abandoned the jīva's body, the unborn Lord, together with the jīva, produces another body for the jīva and enters it.
Thus, in the Mānya Saṃhitā.
“A child” is one like a young boy, or one with a subtle body. Alternatively, although the child has a subtle body, he is not a young boy. “He brought him to maturity” means that he made him possess mature knowledge and other qualities. “The mighty one” is the great Brahmā. “The seeker” is one seeking his own self. “For the father” means for himself, and “for the mother” means for Lakṣmī. “One possessing comprehensive understanding” means that he again made him complete in knowledge concerning his father and mother.
Keśava, the greatest among the great, brought his own son—the mighty creator, full of knowledge—to completion by granting him liberation.
When it had thus taken place...
“Forward, forward! Praise the nourishing Triṣṭubh verse for yourselves; praise forth him who routed the adversaries”—thus he recites well-known Anuṣṭubh verses. Just as someone, after wandering off the path here and there, might find the path again, so is it when he recites well-known Anuṣṭubh verses.
The designated verses are as they stand. Recitation as arranged, without combining material from here and there, is attainment of the path.
If someone, being overcome, should consider himself as though bereft of prosperity, he should have the uninterwoven Ṣoḷaśin recited, with the thought, “May I certainly not fall down because of a difficulty with the metres.” And if someone should wish to strike away evil, he should have the interwoven Ṣoḷaśin recited. A person is indeed as though intertwined with evil; that recitation strikes away for him precisely that intertwined evil, the defilement. He who knows thus strikes evil away.
“Beset” means “especially afflicted.” “Unseparated” means “uncombined.” Because of hardship—suffering caused by recitation contrary to the proper order—may I not attain a downward course, precisely the condition of having lost prosperity.
“A Vedic self-recitation in reverse order effects victory over enemies; in combined form it destroys sin; in its established order it should bring prosperity—and likewise in recitation.”
When it is undertaken thus...
Association with the Vedas, remaining as established, would bring about the non-diminution of prosperity for one whose prosperity has departed, the destruction of sin, and an increase in another’s prosperity.
Thus, in the Svādhyāyatattva.
The word iva should be employed by the learned to express a slight degree and bothness, as well as doubt and similarity, and also disparagement.
Thus, in the Śabdanirṇaya.
For this reason, the meaning is: “even when there is doubt about the state of having lost splendor.”
Gathered together from here and there in a distinct manner, conjoined, and dispersed.
Because sins are mutually intermingled, what is intermingled is destructive; owing to wealth’s non-intermixture, intermixture is non-destructive. For only what is similar would completely destroy what is similar. Even so, because wealth that has not undergone destruction is strong, what is augmented by desire would not be capable of destroying sin. What is commingled would serve for destruction, for desire is not directed toward the depletion of wealth.
Thus, in the Svādhyāyatattva.
And here, in the statement that non-intermixture also obtains in liberation, the word iva bears both meanings. By praise of such a kind, one destroys sin. Impurity is attachment and the like, because sin is mentioned separately.
The term śamala is stated to denote sin, and likewise desire, aversion, and the like. Offense too is śamala, and they understand impurity as śamala.
Thus, in the Śabdanirṇaya.
He who meditates thus also destroys sin.
Meditating upon Janārdana, who is proclaimed while the Ṛc verses are being combined, particularly as the destroyer of sin attached to a person, and also upon the state of being unassociated with sin enjoyed by one liberated through His grace, one is freed from all transgressions even after performing actions.
When thus commenced…
Refutation of the doctrines of the Mīmāṃsakas and others
Nor do statements such as these lack validity with regard to their own meaning, because validity concerning an established fact has been demonstrated and because there is no contradiction. Nor does construing the purport as extending to multiple meanings involve a burden of postulation, since the meaning is apprehended from the statement itself and thus is not postulated.
Nor is there a distinction of the form, “The intended meaning is verbally expressed,” since there is no means of knowledge for that distinction. Where, in ordinary sentences, an intended meaning different from the verbally expressed meaning is cognized, the utterance does not convey it directly. That is indeed an inference having the utterance as its inferential mark, or, because of contradiction, secondary signification when the speaker’s trustworthiness is ascertained. When trustworthiness is not ascertained, there is no validity at all. For a Vedic sentence, however, no meaning other than the verbally expressed meaning is tenable; but even many verbally expressed meanings are acceptable when there is no contradiction.
“For it is revealed with reference to either deep sleep or final attainment.” — Brahma Sūtra 4/4/16
Thus reads the sūtra.
Because of motion, bringing forth, sport, dwelling, radiance, covering, and play, and because of strength, being life, giving, and continuance, the Vedas call him Vāsudeva.
Thus and so forth declares the Śaukarāyaṇa śruti.
The expression “one or the other” is solely for removing the doubt that sleep exists even in liberation.
No meaning occurring in the Veda could exist at all without conventional usage and derivation. Even among these, the derivational meaning is primary; it is present everywhere in Vedic usage. To prevent infinite regress, conventional usage is postulated within the derivational meaning. Once it is known, cognition of the specific referent and also usage arise from conventional usage.
Thus, in the Brahmatarka.
By abandoning the verbally expressed meaning and postulating an injunctive meaning, the two faults surpassing all faults—abandonment of what is stated and postulation of what is unstated—would needlessly ensue for him. And when it is said to one who argues thus, “Injunctive expressions are meaningless, or have established entities as their meanings, or expressions denoting established entities serve as valid sources of knowledge regarding their own meanings,” what reply is there? Nor is there any reason whatsoever for abandoning even many verbally expressed meanings. When a contradiction is apprehended, however, another meaning must be accepted, but only one that is verbally expressed. That this too is indeed verbally expressed is established from that very fact.
There is also a hierarchy among all primary meanings. Even among them, Hari is the supreme primary denotatum, denoted by all sounds. A meaning other than that is accepted insofar as it does not conflict with each respective primary meaning. But when it conflicts with the intrinsically primary meaning, the other meaning is to be rejected in every case. Such is the universal rule in domains of knowing word meanings.
And thus.
Nor is it reasonable to say that benefit pertains only to an action and not to an established fact, since a great benefit is observed even in mere knowledge, in a statement such as one concerning a father's being alive.
And the Lord himself says:
“In this world there are these two persons: the perishable and also the imperishable. All beings constitute the perishable; the immutable is called the imperishable. But the supreme Person is another, declared to be the Supreme Self: the undecaying Lord who, having entered the three worlds, sustains them. Since I am beyond the perishable and even higher than the imperishable, I am therefore renowned in the world and in the Veda as the Supreme Person. Whoever, free from delusion, thus knows me as the Supreme Person is a knower of all and worships me with his whole being, O Bharata. Thus has this most secret teaching been declared by me, O sinless one. Having understood this, one would become discerning and one who has done what had to be done, O Bharata.” — Bhagavad Gita 15/16-20
Thus.
“The sacrifice of knowledge is superior to a sacrifice consisting of material offerings, O scorcher of foes.” — Bhagavadgītā 4/33
And thus.
But meditation is superior to all actions, and knowledge is superior to meditation. For the attainment of the human goal, nothing is comparable to knowledge.
When this has thus been stated…
“Indeed, action is by far inferior to the discipline of understanding, O Dhanañjaya.” — Bhagavad Gītā 2/49
And thus.
Even the entire aggregate of actions does not attain a trace of meditation on Viṣṇu; and that meditation does not measure up to a ten-millionth part of knowledge of Hari.
Thus, in the Karmaviveka.
“Knowing him thus, one becomes immortal here; no other path to attainment exists.” — Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 3/12/7
Thus also says the Śruti.
Nor does the Veda culminate in action alone, because happiness and knowledge alone are the purpose. Hence, only what is already established must be affirmed as the purpose.
And the purport of praise and the like has been stated by the Lord himself precisely by not abandoning the expressly stated meaning:
“Or it is figurative, because of not knowing the Self; for indeed it shows this to be so.” — Brahma-sūtra 3/1/7
Thus.
Therefore, praises and the like that appear as if contradictory are to be construed with reference to what assists knowledge. But when the Purāṇas and the like conflict with Śruti and the like, even a secondary meaning is admissible.
“Having displayed trickery, magic, and contradictory practices, quickly delude all the people, O Maheśvara.” — Varāha Purāṇa 70/37
This and similar statements occur in the Varāha Purāṇa.
