Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 3.2.25, including the commentary of Nimbarka and sub-commentary of Srinivasa known as Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and Vedanta-kaustubha resepctively. Also included are the comparative views of important philosophies, viz., from Shankara, Ramanuja, Shrikantha, Bhaskara and Baladeva.

Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.25

< Previous

Next >

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.25 by Roma Bose:

“And as in the case of light and the best, (there is) non-difference (i.e. the case of Brahman is similar to the case of light and the best), and (Brahman’s) manifestation (takes place) through repetition with regard to act (i.e. the means).”

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

Just as there is manifestation of the sun, fire and the like through the repetition of the means resorted to by those who long for them, so there is “non-difference” in the case of Brahman too, i.e. there is “manifestation” of Brahman.^[1] The sense is that the direct vision of Brahman results from the incessant repetition of the sādhanas or the means consisting in perfect meditation.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. To say that Brahman becomes manifest in perfect meditation only does not stand to reason; for why should not everyone equally see Brahman who is the soul of all and all-pervading?—the author replies:

The light of the sun is within the reach of all, yet the sun manifests itself “through the repetition with regard to act”, i.e. through the repeated mutterings of sacred formulae and so on by Kunti, Yudiṣṭhira and the like; the fire is within the reach of all, yet it manifests itself “through the repetition with regard to act”, i.e, through the repeated churning and the like by the twice-born; and gold is available only “through the repetition with regard to act”, i.e. through repeated searching and so on. The case of Brahman too is “non-different” or similar. That is, Brahman, though available by all, manifests Himself to those alone who are desirous of salvation and meditate on Him incessantly.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Interpretation absolutely different, viz. “And as in the case of light and the rest, there is non-difference (between Brahman and the individual soul), and the light (viz. Brahman) (appears manifold) in work (i.e. through its connection with the limiting adjuncts), on account of repetition (i.e. the repeated declaration of Scripture)”. That is, in the preceding sūtra it has been pointed out that Brahman manifests itself in profound meditation. This seems to suggest that there is a difference between Brahman, the object worshipped, and the individual soul, the worshipper. This sūtra controverts the suggestion by pointing out that just as the rays of the sun appear crooked, straight and so on in accordance with the shape and position of the lingers and the like through which they are passing, but the real sun remains what it is, so Brahman appears dual through the limiting adjunct of meditation and so on, but is really one and without a second. That is, for the purpose of meditation, a distinction is made between Brahman and the individual soul, but there is no real difference between them.^[2]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

This is sūtra, 24 in his commentary.

Interpretation different. Here he continues the problem, viz. What is exactly denied by the text: “Not so, not so” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6). The sūtra means, according to him: “Like light (i.e. knowledge) and so on, there is non-difference, (i.e. just as knowledge, bliss and the like constitute the very nature of Brahman, so do His corporeal and incorporeal forms), and (just as) light (i.e. knowledge) (and bliss and the like are known to be constituting the very nature of Brahman) from the repetition with regard to act, (i.e. from the repeated practice of devout meditation), (so are His corporeal and incorporeal forms)”. That is, Vāmadeva and others, who obtained a direct vision of the Lord, perceived Him as knowledge and bliss and so on, just as they perceived Him also as possessed of the corporeal and incorporeal forms. And, just as Vāmadeva and others perceived Him as knowledge and bliss and so on through the repeated practice of meditation, so they perceived Him as possessed of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms through the repeated practice of meditation. Hence the above text: “Not so, not so” denies only the so-muchness of Brahman, but not His corporeal and incorporeal forms.^[3]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 26 in his commentary. He interprets the first-portion of the sūtra like Śaṅkara, the last portion like Nimbārka; although he gives two alternative interpretations of the word “karmaṇi”: “(If it be said that the Highest Self being unmanifest, beyond the senses and obtainable through meditation only, must be different from the individual soul,—we reply:) Like light and the rest, there is non-difference also (between Brahman and the individual soul), and the manifestation (of Brahman, which brings about this non-difference, arises) from the repetition (i.e. the repetition of meditation) with regard to act (i.e. with regard to the object to be worshipped, viz. Brahman). (Or an alternative explanation:) from the repetition with regard to act (i.e. with regard to meditation)”.^[4]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

This is sūtra 24 in his commentary. Interpretation different.

“And as in the case of light (viz. knowledge) and so on (there is) non-difference, and the manifestation (of Brahman takes place) through the repetition with regard to act, (i.e. those who attain a direct vision of the Lord, come to have lordship and the rest like Him, just as they come to have knowledge, bliss and the rest like Him,—there is no difference between their attaining knowledge, bliss and the rest like the Lord and attaining lordship and so on like Him).”^[5]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He breaks this sūtra into two different sūtras thus: “Prakāśādi-vac ca vaiśaśyāt” (sūtra 25), “Prakāśaś ca karmaṇy abhyāsāt” (sūtra 26). Interpretation of the first portion entirely different.

Sūtra 25.—Here the word “na” is to be supplied, according to Him, from sūtra 19. Hence the sūtra: “And (the Lord is) not like light (i.e. fire) and the rest, for (there are) no (such) distinctions (in Him)”. That is, fire has two states, subtle and gross, and it is unmanifest in its subtle state, but becomes manifest in its gross state. Such is not the ease with the Lord, i.e. it is not that the Lord is un-manifest in His subtle state, but becomes manifest in His gross state,—for, in Him there is no such distinction of subtle and gross. Hence the manifestation of the Lord does not depend on any such states, hut on the love and devotion of the devotee.^[6]

Sūtra 26.—“And (if it be objected that it is by no means a universal rule that whoever loves God sees Him, we reply:) the manifestation (of the Lord to the devotee is brought about) through the repetition with regard to act (i.e. through the repeated practice of meditation).” That is, mere love is of no avail, but the constant repetition of the acts of meditation, etc. is necessary.^[7]