Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 3.2.27, 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 3.2.27

< Previous

Next >

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.27 by Roma Bose:

“But on account of the designation of both, like the case of the serpent and the coil.”

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

The view that the corporeal and the incorporeal are never negated by Scripture is being confirmed here. The universe, consisting of the corporeal and the incorporeal, abides in its own cause, viz. Brahman, in a relation of difference-non-difference, on account of the designation of both difference and non-difference, “like the case of the serpent and the coil”.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been pointed out that the entire expanse of the universe,. consisting of the corporeal and the incorporeal, mentioned in Scripture as the effect and form of Brahman, cannot be the object of the denial: “Not so, not so” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6); and also that Brahman, being transcendent, is faultless. With a view to confirming this, the reverend author of the aphorisms states his own conclusion, expounding the meaning of all Scriptures, viz. that the universe, the effect, stands in a relation of difference-non-difference to Brahman, the cause.

In spite of their difference from Brahman, the whole groups of effects, like the corporeal and the incorporeal and so on, are non-different from Him. Why? “On account of the designation of both,” i.e. on account of the designation of difference and non-difference. Compare the following texts designating difference: “From whom, verily, these beings arise” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 3.1), “He who abiding within the earth” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.3) and so on; and the text designating non-difference: “All this, verily, is Brahman” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1) and so on.

Here the author states a parallel instance: “Like the serpent and the coil”. In all cases, the parallel instances are to be understood as referring to the relevant portion only.^[1] The serpent, having the form of a rope and the material constituting the coil, is the cause; and analogous to it is Brahman, endowed with all powers, and the one non-different efficient and material cause of the world. The coil, having the form of a bracelet, is the effect; and analogous to it is the Universe, consisting of the corporeal and the incorporeal, the effect. Among these, the coil is dependent on another, something to be pervaded and an effect; while in contrast to it, the serpent is self-dependent, the pervader and the cause. Hence there is a difference between the two. And, since the coil has no existence and activity apart from the serpent, it is non-different as well from the serpent. In the same way, the Universe, the effect of Brahman who is possessed of the powers of the sentient and the non-sentient, is both different and non-different from Brahman, the cause. There is a multitude of scriptural texts in conformity with the aphorisms, viz. “Two birds, close friends” (Ṛgveda-saṃhitā 1.164.20^[2]; Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 31.1; Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.6), “Thinking the Mover and the soul to be separate” (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.6), “And all this, verily, is Brahman” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1), “All this has that for its soul” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.6, etc.), “Brahman alone is all this” (Nṛsiṃha-uttara-tāpanī-upaniṣad 7), “The soul alone is all this” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.26.1) and so on. The sense is that there can be no negation of the corporeal and the incorporeal, because they have Brahman for their soul.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 28 in Bhāskara’s commentary.

They take this sūtra as stating a prima facie view regarding the relation between Brahman and the individual soul, i.e. how to reconcile the texts designating difference and those designating non-difference. Hence the sūtra: “But on account of the designation of both (i.e. because in Scripture we meet with two kinds of texts, one designating difference, the other non-difference), (the individual soul is both different and non-different from Brahman), like the serpent and the coil”. That is, the snake is one as a whole, yet is different, as having different postures, viz. coil, the erect hood and so on. Similarly Brahman is one, but is different as soul, matter and so on.^[3]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

This is sūtra 26 in their commentaries. Rāmānuja begins a new adhikaraṇa here. Interpretation different. They too take this sūtra as stating a prima facie view regarding the relation between the non-sentient (i.e. the acit) and Brahman, and interpret it to mean that the non-sentient is but a particular state (saṃsthāna-viśeṣa) of Brahman, just as the coil is of the serpent.^[4]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 28 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here, concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the identity between the Lord and His attributes (four sūtras). Hence the sūtra: “But on account of the designation of both, (the Lord is both bliss and blissful and so on), like the serpent and the coil”. That is, the Lord is essentially intelligence and bliss, yet possesses these as His attributes, just as the serpent is nothing but the coil, yet possesses it as its attribute.^[5]