Brahma-Sūtra 2.3.49

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.3.49 by Roma Bose:

“And (the doctrines of the all-pervasiveness of the soul) are fallacies merely.”

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

And the doctrines of an all-pervasive soul and the rest of the opponents like Kapila and others are “fallacious merely”, since, on those views, there results a confusion (among karmas and so on of the souls).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

But the doctrines of an all-pervasive soul and the rest of Kapila, Kaṇāda and so on are “fallacious merely”, as they have no (scriptural) basis, and as, on these views, there a confusion among all practical transactions will result. By the term “and” it is indicated that such teachers simply delude people.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

This is sūtra 50 in his commentary. He reads “ābhāsaḥ” in place of “ābhāsāḥ”. Interpretation absolutely different, viz. “(The individual soul is) only a reflection (of Brahman)”. Thus, here he develops his doctrine of Pratibimba.^[1]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

He reads “ābhāsaḥ”, and interprets the sūtra thus: “(The view that Brahman is obscured by limiting adjunct or nescience) is simply a fallacy”. He accepts the alternative reading “ābhāsāḥ” too and points out that in that case the sūtra will mean: “(The various reasons advanced by the supporters of the above doctrine) are simply fallacies”.^[2]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 50 in his commentary. He substitutes “vā” in place of “ca”. He, also, like Rāmānuja, directs this sūtra against the Śaṃkarite view, thus: “(Nesciences are) simply fallacies”.^[3]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He too directs this sūtra against the Śaṃkarite view, interpreting it like Rāmānuja’s second interpretation.^[4]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 48 in his commentary. He reads “ābhāsaḥ”. The same topic continued, viz. “(The reason adduced by the prima facie

objector to prove the similarity of the soul with the incarnation) is a mere fallacy”. That is, the argument:

The soul is a part of the Lord.
The incarnation is a part of the Lord.
* the soul is equal to the incarnation,

evidently involves the logical fallacy of undistributed middle.^[5]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 2.3.50, pp. 642.

[2]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 2.3.49, p. 163, Part 2.

[3]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 2.3.50, p. 142.

[4]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 2.3.49, p. 161, Parts 7 and 8.

[5]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 2.3.48, p. 228, Chap. 2.