Brahma-Sūtra 1.3.33

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.3.33 by Roma Bose:

[Correct conclusion:]

“But Bādarāyaṇa (maintains) the existence (of right on the part of the gods), for there is (possible longing for Brahman on their part).”

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

With regard to it, the author states the correct conclusion. “Bādarāyaṇa” maintains “the existence” of right on the part of the sun, Vasu and the rest, to the honey-meditation and the like as well, “because” a longing for Brahman “is” possible on their parts, consequent on the attainment by them of their respective offices in a future age as well, through the worship of Brahman, their Inner Controller.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Having thus set forth the view of Jaimini, his Holiness, wishing to refute it, is stating his own view.

The word “but” precludes the prima facie view. The reverend Bādarāyaṇa” maintains “the existence”, i.e. the existence of right on the part of the sun, Vasu and others, to the honey-meditation and the like as well, “because” a longing for Brahman is possible on the part of even the sun and Vasu and the rest in the present age, consequent on their attainment of sun-hood, Vasu-hood and the rest in a future age as well, through the worship of Brahman, their Inner Controller. Thus, here the worship of Brahman being enjoined both in His effected and causal states, the words ‘sun’ and the rest, imply Brahman, their Inner Controller; and hence it is possible for the very same Vasu and others to be the objects to be worshipped and attained; since the concluding text: ‘He who knows this Brahma-Upaniṣad’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.11.3) proves that the words ‘sun’ and the rest, imply Brahman. Thus, Brahman alone being the object to be worshipped even in the honey-meditation and the like, the text: ‘That the gods worship as the light of lights, as life, as immortality’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4,6) is perfectly consistent. It cannot be said also that as the fruit of the honey-meditation is the attainment of Vasu-hood and the rest, and as Vasu and the rest have already attained that, they cannot be seekers, or wish for these again,—because in ordinary experience, a desire for wealth in a future life is found on the part of those who are rich in the present life. Hence, it is established that the gods are entitled to the honey-meditation and the like. [also see appendix on Madhu-vidyā]

Here ends the section entitled ‘The honey and the rest’ (8).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Interpretation different, viz. ‘Bādarāyaṇa (maintains) the existence (of right on the part of the gods), for (although the gods have no right to the Madhu-vidvā and the rest, in which they themselves are implicated, yet there is (their right to the pure knowledge of Brahman’).^[1] Thus, Śaṅkara does not admit that the gods are entitled to the Madhu-vidyā as Nimbārka does. The view of the latter as we have seen, is that the gods are entitled not only to the knowledge of Brahman in general, but also to those vidyās in which they themselves are implicated.

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

Interpretation of ‘asti hi’ different, viz. ‘...for there is (scriptural evidence that the gods are entitled to the Madhu-vidyā and the rest)’.^[2]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

‘Yady-api madhv-ādi-vidyāsu devatādi-vya-miśrāsu asambhavo’ dhikā-rasya, tathāpi asti hi śuddhāyāṃ Brahmavidyāyāṃ sambhavaḥ’.
Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.3.33, p. 367.

[2]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 1.3.33, p. 66.