by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words
English translation of the Brahma-sutra 2.3.48, 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.
English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.3.48 by Roma Bose:
“And on account of non-extension there is no extension.”
Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):
In spite of the fact that the individual souls are parts of the all-pervasive Being, and in spite of the fact that they themselves are all-pervasive by reason of their (all-pervasive) attribute (of knowledge), the individual souls, being atomic by nature, are not all-pervasive and as such there is no confusion among karmas.
Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)
To the objection, viz. On your view, too, on account of being parts of the all-pervasive Being, as well as on account of possessing an all-pervasive attribute, all the souls come to experience the pleasures and the like in all the bodies; and as such a confusion among karmas, as well as a confusion among the enjoyments of their fruits-will result. Hence, as the view that the soul is a part of the all-pervading Brahman, is atomic by itself and is all-pervasive by reason of its attribute, involves unnecessary complications, so Kapila’s doctrine of the soul, viz. that the soul is all-pervasive by itself, is more acceptable,—the author replies here:
“On account of the non-extension,” i.e. non-all-pervasiveness of the souls,—mutually distinct by reason of being atomic, and distinct also from the Whole (i.e. the Lord) by being predicated as parts,—“there is no confusion”. The term “and” indicates the contraction of the soul’s knowledge during its state of bondage.
Comparative views of Baladeva:
This is sūtra 47 in his commentary. The same topic continued: “And on account of the non-extension (i.e. incompleteness of the individual soul, there is) no (possibility of) a confusion (between it and an incarnation)”. That is, the soul is atomic and not full and perfect like an incarnation, hence different from him.
Footnotes and references:
Vide Vedānta-pārijata-saurabha 2.3.28.
Govinda-bhāṣya 2.3.47, p. 227, Chap. 2.