Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 1.3.10, 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 1.3.10

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.3.10 by Roma Bose:

“The imperishable (is Brahman), because of supporting the end of the ether.”

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

The Imperishable is Brahman. Why? “Because of its supporting” the ether, indicated as the support of the effects in past, present and future.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that the Bṛhadāraṇyaka passage: ‘He said: “That, verily, is the Imperishable”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.8) and so on, refers to Brahman.

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka we read: “‘In whom is the ether woven, warp and woof?” He said: “That, verily, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short, non-long, non-red, non-lubricous, without shadow”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.8) and so on. A doubt arises, viz. whether here pradhāna is understood by the term ‘Imperishable’, or the individual soul, or the Supreme Brahman. What is suggested, to begin with? The prima facie view is as follows: Let pradhāna be denoted by the term ‘Imperishable’ because, to be the supporter of its own effects fits in on its part; and because non-grossness and the rest, too, fit in on its part, it being admitted to be without form. Or, let the individual soul he implied by the term ‘Imperishable’, since it is possible for it to be the supporter of all nun-sentient objects, the objects of its own enjoyment.

With regard to it, we reply: The Imperishable is the Supreme Brahman, Why? “On account of supporting (all things) ending with the ether”, i.e. on account of supporting that which ends with the ether, viz. the group of effects beginning with the earth, or the group of effects, beginning with the earth and ending with the ether. To the query; ‘“That, O Yājñavalkya, which is above the heaven, that which is beneath the earth, that which is between these heaven and the earth, that which is past, present and future[1], in whom is all that woven, warp and woof?”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.6), the answer being given: ‘“In the ether alone all that is inter-woven, warp and woof’” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.7), Gārgī asked again: ‘“In whom, verily, is the ether interwoven, warp and woof”?’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.7). Then, the answer given was that the support of (all things), beginning with the earth and ending with the ether, is the Imperishable, in the passage: ‘He said: “That, verily, is the Imperishable”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.8) and so on. Thus, on account of supporting the group of effects, beginning with the earth and ending with the ether, known from the above question and answer, the Imperishable is none but Brahman.

Or else, (an alternative explanation of the sūtra;) “The end”, i.e. the limit or the cause, of the “ether”, meaning the atmospheric ether[2], is the non-manifest pradhāna,—“on account of supporting it”. That is, the Imperishable,—mentioned as the support of that which is indicated as the support of all objects in past, present and future, in the passage beginning: ‘That which is above’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.7); which is denoted by the term ‘ether’; and which has the names ‘nonmanifest’, ‘subtle’, ‘pradhāna’ and the rest,—is not pradhāna, but Brahman alone.[3]

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

Interpretation of the term ‘ambarānta’ different, viz. ‘(all things) ending with the ether’[4]. Śaṅkara uses the term ‘Brahman’ here[5], although evidently from his point of view Brahman cannot be such a support, but Īśvara.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Omits ‘ācakṣata’, vide Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.6, p. 168.

[2]:

I.e. the ether, in the ordinary sense, as distinguished from the ether which denotes pradhāna.

[3]:

Note that the first explanation given by Śrīnivāsa tallies with the explanations of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara, the second with those of Rāmānuja and Nimbārka and others.

[4]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.3.10, p. 318. Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 1.3.10, p. 55. See Śrīnivāsa above.

[5]:

P. 319, ‘Na ca ayam ambarānta-dhṛtiḥ Brahmaṇo’nyatra sambhavati’, etc.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: