Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.20 (correct conclusion, 20-21)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.20 by Roma Bose:

“(Brahman’s) participation in the increase and decrease on account of being included within (is denied), on account of the agreement between the two (i.e. the example and the exemplified) (it is) so.”

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

With regard to it, we reply: “The participation” of the Lord of places (i.e. Brahman) “in the increase and decrease” of the places (i.e, the individual souls and matter),—He being their Inner Controller,—is what is denied by the example. “On account of the agreement between the two,” it is “so”, i.e. only the intended portion is to be understood.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

With regard to it, the author replies:

The word ‘no’ is to be supplied from the preceding aphorism. In spite of His “being included within” the places, there is no “participation in the increase and decrease”,—due to those places,—on 'the part of Brahman, the Highest, who is the lord of places, in accordance with the scriptural texts: “He who abiding within the earth” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.3), “He who abiding within the soul” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 6.7.30). This is what is denied by the example of the sun and the rest. “On a ccount of the agreement between the two (this is) so”, i.e. on account of the agreement between the illustration and the illustrated, only the relevant portion is to be understood. Thus, just as the ether, though actually entered within pots, jars and so on, does not participate in the faults of increase and decrease,—although the ether is in every pot and is distinguished conventionally as: ‘There is no water in this pot’, ‘There is sugar in another’, yet it remains one only,—and just as the sun, reflected on different receptacles of water, does not participate in the faults of their increase and decrease, on the contrary manifests a multitude of objects under water,—so the Supreme Brahman, who is one only, abides as manifold in the sentient and non-sentient objects as their Inner Controller, but is not touched by their respective faults, is not divided by their respective differences and does not participate in their increase and decrease. Tims, “on account of the agreement between the two, (this is) so”, i.e. only the relevant points of similarity are to be accepted, otherwise there can be no appropriateness of these two. The resultant meaning is that there can be no relation of example and the exemplified between two objects when the example proves the exemplified to possess contrary qualities.

Or (the word “ubhaya-sāmānyāt” may be explained as): On account of the appropriateness of the two examples of the sun and so on, (i.e. the sun and water, and the ether and pot).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

As before, they interpret the example in a different way. Hence the sūtra: “(There is a common point between the example and the exemplified, viz. their) participation in increase and decrease, owing to being included within, on account of (such an) agreement between the two, (it is) thus: (i.e, the comparison holds good)”. That is, just as the reflected image of the sun, being inside the sheet of water, participates in all the qualities of water, viz. increases and decreases when water does so and so on, but the real sun does not do so, so Brahman, when within, i.e. connected with the limiting adjuncts, such as the body and so on, participates in their growth and the like, but real Brahman never does so.^[1]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

They take this sūtra and the next one as constituting one sūtra.^[2] Interpretation same.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Interpretation different, viz. “(The above simile of the sun and water holds good, though not in its primary sense, yet in its secondary sense of) participating in increase (i.e. greatness) and decrease (i.e, smallness), (i.e. just as the sun participates in increase, i.e. is a large substance untouched by the limitations of water and so on, while the images of the sun participate in decrease, i.e. are limited by the conditions and variations of water, so the Lord participates in greatness, i.e. is great and independent, while the individual soul participates

in smallness, i.e. is small and dependent,—this is what is meant to be illustrated by the simile), on account of being included within, (i.e. because the purport of Scripture is fulfilled by this mode of explanation,—everything is contained in it), on account of the agreement between the two (this is) so, (i.e. the comparison holds good)”.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.2.20, pp. 729-730; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.2.31, pp. 167-168.

[2]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 3.2.20, p. 234, Part 2; Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 3.2.20, p. 250, Part 9.

[3]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.2.20, pp. 69-70, Chap. 3.