Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 2.3.16, 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 2.3.16

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.3.16 by Roma Bose:

“But that designation (of the soul as being born or dying) must depend on (i.e. refer to) the mobile and immobile (bodies), (it is) metaphorical (in reference to the soul), because (there is) the existence (of birth and death) if there be the existence of that (i.e. the body).”

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

The nature of the individual soul is being determined now. “The designation” like: ‘Devadatta is born and dead’ is metaphorical, and as such “depends on the mobile and the immobile”,—there being the “existence” of birth and death when there is the “existence” of the body.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been pointed out above that the ether and the rest originate from Brahman, the unborn, the highest. Now the problem is being considered, viz. whether like them the individual soul, too, is something to be produced or not.

The word ‘soul’ is to be supplied from the immediately following aphorism. On the doubt, viz. whether the ‘soul’, i.e. the individual soul, originates or not, the prima facie view: viz. In conformity with the designation, viz. ‘Devadatta is born and dead’, the soul is born and dies,—is disposed of by the term “but”. This conventional designation of the origination and dissolution of the soul “must be metaphorical”, i.e. is figurative in reference to the individual soul. To the enquiry: In reference to what then is it literal?—(the author) replies: “Dependent on the mobile and the immobile”, i.e. it refers to the bodies of the movable and the immovable. Why ? “Because (there is) existence, if there he the existence of that,” i.e, because there can he origination and dissolution only if there be the existence of that, i.e. the body, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘This person being born and obtaining a body... He departing and dying’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.8).

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

This is sūtra 17 in his commentary. He does not begin a new adhikaraṇa here, but concludes the topic of the order of evolution. He reads both, “bhākta” and “abhākta” and gives two explanations accordingly. Thus: (1) But the designation which depends on (i.e. refers to) the movable and the immovable must be secondary, because of being permeated by the being of that (viz. Brahman). (Here he reads “bhākta”.) That is, all the words denoting movable and immovable objects are only secondary with regard to those objects, but really denote Brahman, since all objects are modes of Brahman, (2) or, all the terms denoting movable and immovable objects are primary with regard to Brahman, because the denotative power of all terms depends on the being of Brahman. (Here he reads “abhākta”.)[1]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

This is sūtra 17 in his commentary as well. He reads “abhākta”, takes this sūtra as an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets it exactly like Rāmānuja.[2]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 15 in his commentary. He also reads “abhākta”, takes it as an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets on the whole like Rāmānuja. Only the interpretation of the word “tad-bhāva-bhāvitvāt” is different; viz. “But the designation dependent on (i.e. referring to) the movable and the immovable must be primary (with regard to the Lord), because that fact (tad-bhāva) (viz. the fact that all words really denote the Lord) is something that follows in future (i.e. is not directly known at once, but is a matter which one comes to know after studying Scripture)”.[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 2.3.17, pp. 132-33, Part 2.

[2]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 2,3.17, pp. 138-39, Parts 7 and 8.

[3]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 2.3.15, pp. 181-82, Chap. 2.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: