Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.16

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.16 by Roma Bose:

“And (a sentence is not meaningless when it) states that only.”

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

When a text “states that only” or its real meaning only, then indeed it is not meaningless.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now, what makes a text have a meaning or be devoid of meaning?

When a scriptural text “states that only”, i.e. its real meaning only, then it is not meaningless. The term “and” implies that if it be taken, by foolish persons, to be referring to what is not its subject-matter, then it becomes meaningless. This being so, the texts designating the two-fold characteristics of Brahman being mutually non-contradictory, are literally true and authoritative,—this is the implied meaning.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

Interpretation different as before, viz. “And (Scripture declares that only, (viz. that Brahman is pure, non-differentiated consciousness)”.^[1]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

Interpretation different, viz. “And (texts like: ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite’) declare that only”, viz. only that Brahman is self-manifesting, but does not deny that Brahman has other qualities, such as, being capable of realizing all His wishes at once and so on, known from other texts. This sūtra and the next answer, according to them, the prima facie view, viz. that texts like “Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1) only designate Brahman as devoid of all differences and self-manifesting by nature; while, on the other hand, texts like: “Not so, not so” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6) prove the qualities of Brahman, such as Omniscience and so on, to be false. Hence Brahman cannot be said to be possessed of two-fold characteristics, viz. having all auspicious qualities and being free from all defects whatsoever.^[2]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He continues the same topic about the body of the Lord, viz. “And (Scripture) declares that only, (viz. that the body of the Lord is the Lord himself)”. That is, it must not be thought, on the ground of the previous aphorism, that Brahman has no actual form, but is conceived to have a form for the sake of meditation only, for Scripture declares that the Lord does possess a form and that this form is not different from Him, but the very essence of His self.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.2.16, p. 727; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.2.17, p. 166.

[2]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 3.2.16, p. 232, Part 2; Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 3.2.16, pp. 247-248, Part 9.

[3]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.2.16, p. 429, Chap. 3. “Atra dehād, bhinno dehīt-y-evam bhideśvara-vastuni nāsti; kimtu deha eva dehīti labdham.”