Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.3 (correct conclusion, 3-6)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.3 by Roma Bose:

“But (the dream-creation is) mere māyā, (the individual soul is not the creator of dream objects) on account of not having (its own attributes) fully manifest in nature.”

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

With regard to it, we reply; In the state of dream, the group of effects like chariots and the rest is made by the supreme Lord alone, possessed of true resolves and omniscient,—since such wonderful objects are not indeed made by the individual soul, its attributes of having true resolves and the rest being not “fully^[1] manifest” during its state of bondage.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

With regard to this, the author states the correct conclusion.

The word “but” is meant for disposing of the above view. The dream-chariots and the like are “mere māyā”, i.e. simply wonderful. Here the word “māyā” means wonderful things. Lord Vāsudeva, an adept in the art of creating and destroying all wonderful objects, creates—through His own powers which are inconceivable—groups of wonderful objects like chariots and the rest, in accordance with the respective deeds of souls in order that they may enjoy these objects. But it is not possible for the dreaming soul itself to be their creator in the absence of appropriate implements and the like,—because its attributes of having true resolves and the rest “are not fully manifest in nature”, i.e. are hidden during its state of bondage.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

Interpretation absolutely different. They too take this sūtra as beginning the correct conclusion. Thus the sūtra means: “But (the dream-creation is) mere māyā (i.e. unreal), on account of not having its own nature fully manifest.” That is, a dream-object is not like an object in the waking state, since it does not possess all the characteristics of the latter. An object in the waking state has a particular place where and a particular time when it exists, it is perceived through a particular sense-organ, and is non-contradicted. Now a dream-object has no place where it can exist. A dream-chariot, e.g. cannot exist in the limited span of the body. It has, further, no fixed time when it exists. To the dreamer a single minute may appear as a century. Also it cannot be grasped by any sense-organ. How can the dreamer see a chariot, e.g. when his eyes are shut? Finally, it is contradicted as soon as the dreamer wakes up. Hence a dream-object cannot be on a par with an object in the waking state and be real like it.^[2]

Bhāskara criticizes the view of Śaṅkara in this connection by pointing out that those who hold that objects in the waking state too are māyā misinterpret the author of the sūtra and delude people.^[3]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Interpretation different, viz. “But (the dream-objects are) māyā (i.e. not composed of ordinary materials, but are created by the mysterious will of the Lord), on account of not having (their) real nature fully manifest, (i.e. because they are not objects of perception as gross material objects are)”. This also proves that the dream objects are created by the Lord alone and not by the individual soul.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The [Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series] ed. (p. 51) reads “sākalyena” instead of “kārtsnyena”.

[2]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Baladeva 3.2.3, pp. 707 ff.; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.2.3, p. 161.

[3]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.2.3, p. 161.

[4]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.2.3, pp. 42-43, Chap. 3.