Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 2.2.36, 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 2.2.36

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.2.36 by Roma Bose:

“And on account of the permanency of the two (preceding sizes of the soul) owing to the final (size), there is nondistinction (of the size).”

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

If it be said: We admit that the “final” size of the soul is constant, and hence the initial and the intervening sizes too must be so,—(we reply:) then, there must be “non-distinction” everywhere, (and hence) the doctrine (that the soul is of the) size of the body is set aside.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The size as well as the real nature (which the soul attains) during its state of salvation, after the destruction of the final body, are eternal. At that time there is no assumption of a subtle or gross body (by the soul), so there is no contraction or expansion of it. Thus, “on account of the permanency of the final” size, as well as of the real nature (of the soul), the permanency of both the initial and intervening (sizes) too is meant by the Arhatas; and hence there must be “nondistinction” everywhere,—this is the sense. In short, the soul must have a permanent and constant size in a gross body as well as in a subtle body, in its state of bondage as well as in its state of release; and the doctrine that it is of the size of the body must be but a childish prattle. Hence, it is established that our conclusion is not contradicted by the view of the naked (i.e. the Jainas), based on error.

Here ends the section entitled “Impossible in one” (6).

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Interpretation different, viz. “On account of the non-distinction of the final state, (viz. salvation) (from the mundane state), both being permanent”. That is, on the Jaina view, there is no difference between the state of release and the mundane state, because the former is, according to them, a constant progress upward, or remaining in the alokākāśa. Now, motion, whether in the world or upward is always mundane; and no one can possibly feel any pleasure in the state of constant motion, or in standing still in a place without any support. Hence there is no difference between release and bondage on this view.[1]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 2.2.36, pp. 145-146, Chap. 2.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: