Brahma-Sūtra 1.3.7

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.3.7 by Roma Bose:

“And on account of abiding and eating.”

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

“On account of the abiding” of the Highest Self as a non-eater, as well as ‘on account of the eating’ of the individual soul, as laid down in the text: ‘Two birds’ (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.1; cf. also Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.6^[1]), the individual soul is not the support of the heaven and the earth.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The author is once more explaining statements regarding the difference between the individual soul and Brahman.

The individual soul is not the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest. Why? “On account of abiding and eating”, “sthiti” and “odana” (make) “sthityodane”—on account of that^[2]. “On account of the abiding” of one bird in the tree, i.e. the body, without eating the fruit of work and shining, and “on account of the eating” of the fruit of work by the other as subject to karmas,—as laid down in the text which refers to the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest, viz. ‘Of these two, one tastes the sweet berry, the other looks on without eating’ (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.3)—the difference between the individual soul and Supreme Soul is known. Hence, it is established that the independent and omniscient Supreme Soul alone is the bridge to immortality; and as the soul of all, He is also the support of the heaven, the earth and the rest.

Here ends the section entitled ‘The heaven, the earth and the rest’ (1).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Reading and interpretation same, but points out at the end in his usual manner that the distinction between the individual soul and Brahman is no more real than that between the ether within a pot and the universal ether and so on.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Baladeva, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[2]:

This explains the compound ‘sthityodanābhyām’.

[3]:

Ś.B. 1.3.7, p. 31.