Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 3.2.29, 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 3.2.29

< Previous

Next >

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.29 by Roma Bose:

“Or as before.”

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

Objections, like the consequence of entire (transformation) and the rest, have been refuted “before”.^[1]

Vedānta- kaustubha

To the objection, viz. If the universe be a particular state of Brahman, as the coil is of the serpent, then there results a mass of objections like the consequence of entire (transformation of Brahman), the contradiction of scriptural texts and so on,—(the author) replies:

The word “or” is meant for refuting the objection. There can be no objection whatsoever “as before”; i.e. the above objections have already been refuted under the aphorism: “But on account of Scripture, on account of being based on word” (Brahma-sūtra 2.1.25).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 30 in the commentary of Śaṅkara. They take it as stating the correct conclusion as against the above two prima facie views regarding the relation between Brahman and the individual soul. Hence the sūtra means: The relation between the two is to be understood as before, i.e. as stated under the sūtra 3.2.25 (sūtra 3.2.26 in Bhāskara’s commentary), viz. the relation between light and its limiting adjuncts, like fingers, etc.^[2]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

This is sūtra 28 in their commentaries. They too take it as stating the correct conclusion as against the above two prima facie views regarding the relation between the non-sentient and Brahman. They point out that both the above alternatives lead Brahman Himself to partake of the faults of the non-sentient world. Hence the correct view of the relation between the two is the same as that mentioned before under sūtras 2.3,42 and 2.3.45, in connection with the discussion of the relation between the sentient and Brahman, i.e. an attribute-substance relation. That is, just as it has been shown that the individual soul is a part and an attribute of Brahman and as such different from Him, so exactly is matter too.^[3]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 30 in his commentary. He continues the topic of the identity between the Lord and His attributes, illustrating it by a third example, viz. Brahman is both bliss and blissful, knowledge and knower and so on, just as the one, indivisible time is said to be prior and posterior. Baladeva points out that of these three illustrations, viz. the serpent and its coil, the sun and its rays, and time, each of succeeding one is meant for finer and subtler intellect.^[4]