Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.9

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.9 by Roma Bose:

“But he alone (rises) on account of work, remembrance, text and injunction.”

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

“He alone,” i.e. that individual soul which was asleep, arises,—because having half finished a piece of work the previous day, lie remembers it and finishes the other half the next day; because there is a scriptural text to that effect: “Whatever they are in his world, whether tiger, or lion, or wolf, or boar,...,^[1] or gnat, or mosquito, that they become” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.9.2^[2]) and so on; and because of the injunctions: “Let one perform the Agni-hotra” (Maitrī 6.36^[3]), “Let-one meditate on the soul” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.4.7^[4]) and so on.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now apprehending the objection, viz. Naturally, the soul, which has entered Brahman, the place of deep sleep, and has thereby become freed from the two states, the abode of miseries, will never rise from Him again—the author replies:

The doubt is as to whether he alone who was asleep arises at the time of awakening, or some one else? On the suggestion, viz. One who has attained Brahman will not rise from Him again, and hence not the sleeper himself, but another rises—

We reply: The word “but” is meant for disposing of the view. “He alone” who was asleep arises, and not another. Why? On account of the following reasons, viz. work, remembrance, text and injunction.^[5] Having begun a piece of work, accomplishable in two days, a man goes to sleep at night, and on arising again, that very man finishes it the next day. From, such work it is known that that very one who was asleep is now awoke. This is so, also on account of remembrance, i.e. on account of the recognition, viz. ‘I, who was asleep at night, am awake in the morning’; on account of texts like: “All these creatures go day after day to the world of Brahman, (but) do not know^[6] it” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.3.2), “Whatever they are in this world, whether tiger, or lion, or wolf, or boar,....,^[7] or gnat, or mosquito, that they become” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.9.2) and so on; and on account of the injunctive texts, referring to enjoyment and emancipation, such as: “Let one desirous of heaven perform the Agni-hotra” (Maitrī 6.36), “Let one desirous of heaven perform sacrifices” (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 2.5.5^[8]), “Tranquil, let one meditate” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1), “Let one meditate on the soul” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.4.7) and so on. If some one other than the person who went to sleep arose, then these reasons would have been set aside. Hence it is established that the very same person who went to sleep arises.

Here ends the section entitled “The remembrance of work, text and injunction” (3).

Comparative views:

All others interpret the compound “karmānusmṛti-śabda-vidhibhyaḥ” like Śrīnivāsa, i.e. giving four reasons and not three like Nimbārka.^[9]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The portion “kīṭo vā pataṅga vā” left out. Vide Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.9.2, p. 341.

[2]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[3]:

Quoted by Bhāskara.

[4]:

Quoted by Bhāskara, Quoted by Baladeva

[5]:

Note that while Nimbārka interprets the compound “karmānusmṛti-śabda-vidhibhyaḥ” as (1) remembrance of work, (2) text, (3) injunction; Śrīnivāsa interprets it as (1) work, (2) remembrance, (3) text, and (4) injunction, like Śaṅkara and others.

[6]:

Correct quotation: “vindanti” (=find).

[7]:

See footnote 1, p. 519.

[8]:

P. 208, line 27, vol. 2.

[9]:

Quoted by Śaṃkara and Baladeva, 2.3.9, pp. 719 ff.; Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 2.3.9, p. 226, Part 2; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 2.3.9. p. 163; Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 2.3.9, pp. 240-241, Part 9; Govinda-bhāṣya 2.3.9, p. 51, Chap. 3.