Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.43

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.43 by Roma Bose:

“On account of the majority of indicatory marks, for that (viz. indicatory mark) is stronger, this also (has been explained).”

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

The fires, piled up by the mind, piled up by speech, piled up by the vital-breath, piled up by the eye, piled up by the ear, piled up by action, piled up by the fire, and so on,^[1] are simply the subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation^[2], “on account of the majority of the indicatory marks”, such as: “Whatever these conceive with their mind that alone is their composition” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 3^[3]), “All beings at all times pile up those (fires) for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 12^[4]) and so on; “for” an indicatory mark is “stronger” than the context. “This also” has been said in the section treating of what is supplementary to sacrifices: “If there be combination of direct association, indicatory mark, syntactical connection, context, place and name, then each succeeding one is weaker (than each preceding one), on account of its remoteness from the meaning” (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.3.14^[5]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now (the author) points out that the fires too, that are going to he designated now, are not to be taken as subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, just as the meditations founded on the subsidiary elements of sacrificial acts are not to be taken as such.

Having begun: “Verily, in the beginning, this was not existent, not even non-existent” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 1^[6]), having described the appearance of the mind, and having referred to the mind, by pointing out that that mind saw the fires-belonging to itself^[7], thus: “It saw the thirty-six thousand fires, the suns, belonging to itself, made of the mind, piled up by the mind. By the mind alone they were placed, by the mind they were piled up, by the mind the cups were taken in them, by the mind they praised, by the mind they recited. Whatever work is done in a sacrifice” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 3^[8]) and so on, the Vājasaneyins, thus, record imaginary fires, piled up by the mind and so on, viz. piled up by speech, piled up by the eye, piled up by action, piled up by fire,^[9] and so on, in the “Mystery of Fire”.^[10] The life of a person lasts a hundred years. It consists of thirty-six thousand days and nights. In the course of a single day and night, many mental modes arise, and they are taken to be one because they have arisen in the course of the same day and night. Thus, there are thirty-six thousand mental modes in the course of thirty-six thousand days and nights; and they are demonstrated as the bricks which are subsidiary parts of sacrifices, and as elemental fires, by the text: “Thirty-six thousands” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 1) and so on. Among these, those which are ‘piled up’, i.e. built, by the mind are the ‘mind-piled’. Similarly, the meaning of the texts ‘breath-piled’ and so on are to be understood as the case may be.

Here the doubt is as to whether these fires, piled up by the mind and so on are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in actual action, they being mentioned in a section concerned with sacrificial acts; or whether they are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting only in meditation.

First, (the author) begins with the correct conclusion, thus: “On account of the majority of indicatory marks”. They are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation only. Why? “On account of the majority of indicatory marks,” i.e. on account of the majority or numerosity of the indicatory marks, such as “Whatever these conceive with the mind alone that alone is their composition” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 3), “All beings at all times pile up those (fires) for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 12) and so on. “For that,” i.e. for an indicatory mark, is “stronger” than the context. “That also,” i.e. the fact of its being of a greater force, is stated in the Karma-Kāṇḍa thus: “If there be combination of direct assertion, indicatory mark, syntactical connection, context, place and name, then each succeeding one is weaker (than each preceding one), on account of its remoteness from the meaning” (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.3.14).

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an entirely different topic. The question is as to whether the eleventh section of the Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad,—constituting the same vidyā as the vidyā, viz. the Dahara-vidyā, mentioned in the tenth section—establishes only the object to be meditated on in that vidyā, or an object to be meditated on in all Brahma-vidyās. The prima facie view is that this section, in accordance with the context, establishes the object which is to be meditated on in the Dahara-vidyā only. The answer is: “(It establishes an object to be meditated in all Brahma-vidyās), on account of the majority of indicatory marks, (i.e. because there are many specific indications that Nārāyaṇa, designated in this section, is none but the object to be meditated on in all Brahma-vidyās), for that (viz. mark) is stronger (than the context), that too (has been stated in the Pūrva-mīmāṃsā)”.^[11]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He too takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with a topic similar to that of Rāmānuja, only referring to a different passage, designating Rudra instead of Nārāyaṇa. Thus, the question is as to whether the Supreme Brahman or Rudra, accompanied by Umā, mentioned in the thirteenth section of the Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad, is the object to be meditated on in all the parāvidyas, or only in that particular vidyā of that section. The prima facie view is that in accordance with the context, such a Supreme Brahman is to be meditated on in that particular vidyā alone. The answer is the same as that given by Rāmānuja, viz.: “(Such a Brahman is to be meditated on in all the parā-vidyās on account of the majority of indicatory marks—”.^[12]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 45 in his commentary. He too takes this sūtra to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an altogether different topic, viz. the grace of the spiritual teacher. Hence the sūtra: “On account of the majority of indicatory marks, (viz. scriptural texts), that (i.e. the grace of the teacher), is stronger (than any other element in bringing about final emancipation), (but) that also (viz. exertion on one’s own part, viz. study, meditation and so on,) (must be continued)”.^[13]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vide Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3 (whole), pp. 796-798.

[2]:

I.e. these fires do not constitute parts of real sacrifices, and are not actually lighted during the performance of sacrifices, but are simply parts of meditation, i.e. mentally imagined fires.

[3]:

P. 796, lines 7-8. This shows that the fires are composed by mind only, i.e. not actual fires.

[4]:

P. 798, lines 14-15. Quoted by Śaṅkara and Bhāskara.

[5]:

P. 284, vol. 1. Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[6]:

P. 796, line 1.

[7]:

Quotation mark wrong (in the text).

[8]:

P. 796, lines 4-6.

[9]:

Quotation mark wrong (in the text).

[10]:

The name of the tenth book of the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa

[11]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 3.3.43, pp. 325-326, Part 2.

[12]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 3.3.43, pp. 362ff., Parts 10 and 11.

[13]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.45, p. 193, Chap. 3.