Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)
by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words
English translation of the Brahma-sutra 1.2.18, including the commentary of Nimbarka and sub-commentary of Srinivasa known as Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and Vedanta-kaustubha resepctively. Also included are the comparative views of important philosophies, viz., from Shankara, Ramanuja, Shrikantha, Bhaskara and Baladeva.
Brahma-Sūtra 1.2.18
English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.2.18 by Roma Bose:
“On account of non-abiding, as well as on account of impossibility, not the other.”
Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):
That which is within the eye cannot he any one “other” than the Highest Self. Why? Because any one other than Him does not regularly abide therein; and because immortality and the rest are not possible on its part.
Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)
“The other”, i.e. the reflected self, or the individual soul, or the presiding deity of the eye, in short, any one other than the Supreme Soul,—is not the Person within the eye. Why? “On account of non-abiding”, i.e. because any one other than the Supreme Soul, does not regularly abide in the eye, since the presence of the reflected soul in the eye depends on the nearness of another person to the eye, (and hence when the person moves away, there is no reflection any longer); since the individual soul is connected with all the sense-organs (and cannot, therefore, abide within the eye only); and since the presiding deity is declared to abide in the eye through the rays, (and hence does not himself abide within the eyes[1]); and finally, because immortality, fearlessness, ‘being the uniter of lovely things’ and the rest are not possible on the part of any one other than Him. Hence, it is established that the Highest Soul alone is to be worshipped as the person within the eye.
Here ends the section entitled ‘That which is within’ (4).
Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:
Interpretation different, viz. he takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the Person, of the size of a thumb merely, (Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad 16.3) is the Lord or someone else. Thus: ‘(The person, of the size of a thumb, is the Lord), because of the instability (i.e. unsuitableness), as well as because of the impossibility (of the attributes of “having the entire world as the body”, “being the devourer of the entire world”, and so on, on the part of any one else)’.[2]
Footnotes and references:
[2]:
Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 1.1.18, pp. 364-66, Part 4.