Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 2.3.47, 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 2.3.47

< Previous

Next >

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.3.47 by Roma Bose:

“Injunction and prohibition (fit in) on account of (the souls’) connection with bodies, as in the case of fire and so on.”

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

“Injunction and prohibition” like ‘One who is desirous of heaven should perform sacrifices’ (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 2.5.5^[1]), ‘A Śūdra is not to be initiated to a sacrifice’ (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 7.1.1^[2]) and so on do indeed fit in, on account of the connection of the individual souls with different bodies, in spite of their being an equality among them as parts of Brahman; just as fire is brought from the house of a Śrotriya,^[3] but not from the crematory; or just as water and the like, touched by clean persons, pots and so on are accepted and not others.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If the individual souls be all equal as parts and the rest of Brahman, then to whom can the injunctions and prohibitions refer? Listen! In spite of their sameness, injunctions and prohibitions like: ‘One desirous of heaven should perform sacrifices’ (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 2.5.5), ‘Hence a Śūdra is not to be initiated to a sacrifice’ (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 7.1.1) fit in on account of their connection with different bodies, “as in the case of fire and so on”, i.e. just as in spite of being the same, fire is brought from the house of a Śrotriya, but one from crematory and the like is rejected; and just as the urine and excrement of cows and the like are enjoined as holy, but those very things of different animals are rejected.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

He develops in this connection his doctrine of Adhyāsa.^[4] Bhāskara too speaks of his peculiar doctrine of Upādhi.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 46 in his commentary. He continues the same theme,—viz. the distinction between incarnations and ordinary individuals. He interprets the sūtra thus: (In the case of individual souls there are) injunctions and prohibitions, on account of (their) connection with bodies, as in the case of light (i.e. the eye).^[5] That is, the individual soul, though a part of the Lord, is yet connected with nescience and a body, and is as such under the control of the Lord for its activity and inactivity and so on. But an incarnation, though a part of the Lord, is not under His control; just as the eye or the power of vision, though a part of the sun, depends upon the permission, i.e. the presence, of the sun for its activity or otherwise, but a ray of the sun, as a part of the sun, is identical with it, and does not depend upon any permission and the like of the sun.