Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.40 (opponent’s view)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.40 by Roma Bose:

“Religious merit (is the giver of fruits), Jaimini (thinks so) for those very reasons.”

Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):

“Jaimini” thinks that “religious merit” is the cause of the fruit,—because, as in the case of tilling, it alone can appropriately be its cause; and because the text: “One desirous of heaven should perform sacrifices” (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 2.5.5^[1]) declares it to be such a cause.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been stated above that ‘On account of appropriateness’ (sūtra 38), ‘And on account of being declared’ (sūtra 39), the fruit arises from the Highest. Now, as in the case of tilling, Karmas alone can appropriately be the cause of fruits. Further, Karmas like sacrifices and the rest, are declared to be productive of fruits by texts like: “One desirous of heaven should perform sacrifices” (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 2.5.5) and so on. Hence, “for those very reasons,” i.e. on account of the same two reasons, the teacher “Jaimini” thinks that “religious merit” alone, or Karma, is the cause of fruit through the intermediary of the operation called ‘apūrva’. The operation called ‘apūrva’ is said to be a particular subsequent state of the sacrifice.^[2]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P. 208, line 27, vol. 2, Śaṅkara, Baladeva and Bhāskara.

[2]:

According to Pūrva-rnīmāṃsā, the results of sacrifices and so on are due neither to a Supreme Deity—which it does not recognize—, nor to the particular deities to whom the ablations are offered, but to an unseen potency generated by the very performance of the sacrifices, and so on. This unseen potency is called ‘apūrva’. Vide Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 2.1.5.