Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.15

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.15 by Roma Bose:

“And (brahman is) possessed of light, on account of being not devoid of meaning.”

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

Untouched by darkness, “possessed of light”—Brahman, possessed of such a two-fold characteristic, is designated by one text: “Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness” (Vājasaneya-saṃhitā 31.18^[1]; Taittirīya-āraṇyaka 3.13.1; Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 3.8;^[2] Gītā 8.9^[3]), on account of the text being not devoid of meaning.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The view that Brahman is possessed of a two-fold characteristic is being confirmed once more.

Brahman “possessed of light”,—that which has light for its attribute is ‘possessed of light’,—and untouched by the imperfections of the objects to be lighted, as implied by the term “and” (in the sūtra), is possessed of a two-fold characteristic. Why? On account of the texts being not devoid of meaning, viz. “He alone shining everything shines after him. Through his light all this shines” (Kaṭha-upaniṣad 5.15; Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.2.10; Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.14), “Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness” (Vājasaneya-saṃhitā 31.18; Taittirīya-āraṇyaka 3.13.1; Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 3.8; Gītā 8.9) and so on. This aphorism is for showing that one text after another denotes Brahman as possessed of a two-fold characteristic.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Interpretation absolutely different, viz. “And (Brahman is) like light, on account of non-futility of texts (which designate Brahman as possessed of a form)”. That is, just as the light of the sun or the moon, though pervading the entire expanse of the heaven and having no particular shape as such, appears straight, crooked and so on when passing through a finger which is straight, crooked and so on, so Brahman appears as the Universe through its connection with the limiting adjunct. Hence it is that the texts which designate Brahman as having the form of the Universe and so on are not absolutely devoid of meaning, but serve the purpose of meditation.^[4]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

Interpretation different, viz. “And on account of the non-futility (of texts designating Brahman as possessed of all auspicious qualities and devoid of all imperfections)”. That is, just as (the texts designating Brahman as) light such as: “Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1) establish Brahman to be self-manifesting, so certain texts prove Him to be possessed of two-fold characteristics, viz. having all auspicious qualities on the one hand and being free from all defects on the other, both kinds of texts having a definite meaning.^[5]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

Reading slightly different, viz. substitutes “vā” in place of “ca”.^[6]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Interpretation absolutely different, viz. continues the same topic about the body of the Lord thus: “And because of the non-futility (of this conception of the form or body of the Lord) as in the case of light”. That is, just as, though the sun is pure light yet is conceived as having a definite form for the purpose of meditation, so the Lord, though a pure light of knowledge and bliss, is yet conceived to have a form for the purpose of meditation.^[7]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P. 857, lines 10-11,

[2]:

P. 201.

[3]:

Not quoted by others.

[4]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṃkara’s commentary), 3.2.15, pp. 7-26-27.

[5]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 3.2.15, p. 232, Part 2; Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 3.2.16, p. 247, Part 9.

[6]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.2.15, p. 166.

[7]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.2.15, p. 60, Chap. 3.