Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.41 (correct conclusion)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.41 by Roma Bose:

“But (the giver of fruits is) the former (viz. the lord), bādarāyaṇa (thinks so), on account of the designation of (him as) the cause.”

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

The word “but” is meant for disposing of the above view. The teacher of the Veda thinks that the giver of fruits is the Highest Self, mentioned before, “on account of the designation” of the Highest as the cause of it thus: “In consequence of good work, it leads to a holy world” (Praśna 3.7^[1]), “He is attainable by one alone whom he chooses” (Kaṭha 2.23; Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.2.3^[2]).

Here ends the second quarter of the third chapter in the Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṃsā texts, by the reverend Nimbārka.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The term “but” indicates the hollowness of Jaimini’s view. Never in the past, present or future do Kaunas like tilling and the rest bestow the fruit to the tiller independently, but the Supreme Lord alone does so. Similarly, the Vedic works too (viz. sacrifices and the like), unacquainted with the nature of themselves and of others, and done by persons who are tormented by the wheel of the world and are dependent on another, are not able to bring about the fruit independently. Even texts like: “One desirous of heaven should perform sacrifices” (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 2.5.5) and so on, never assert that Karma is the giver of fruits independently. On the contrary, these texts instigate men to Karinas such as, worship of the deity, that lead to heaven. But Bādarāyaṇa thinks that the giver of fruits like enjoyment and salvation is “the former”, i.e. the Highest Self, the soul of all, omniscient, mentioned above. Why? “On account of the designation of (Him as) the cause,” i.e. because the Highest Self alone is designated as the cause, as the instigator of actions and as the giver of fruits by a mass of scriptural texts like: “For he alone makes one, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, do good deed” (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 3.8), “In consequence of good -work, it leads to a holy world” (Praśna 3.7), “He is attainable by one alone whom he chooses” (Kaṭha 2.23; Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.2.3) and so on; as well as by a group of Smṛti passages like: ‘“And he attains his desires from him, the benefits are decreed by me alone”’ (Gītā 7.22) ‘“I give that connection with intellect whereby they come to me”’ (Gītā 10.10) and so on. Hence it is established that the fruit arises from this.

Here ends the section entitled “The fruit” (8).

Here ends the second quarter of third chapter in the holy Vedānta-kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīrakamīmāṃsā, by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa.

Résumé:

The second quarter of the third chapter contains:—

(1) 41 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka;
(2) 41 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṅkara;
(3) 40 sūtras and 8 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja;
(4) 41 sūtras and 7 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara;
(5) 40 sūtras and 9 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha;
(6) 42 sūtras and 19 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva.

Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha take sūtras 20 and 21 in Nimbārka’s commentary as one sūtra. Bhāskara omits sūtra 34 in Nimbārka’s commentary, while sūtra 15 in Bhāskara’s commentary is not found in Nimbārka’s. Baladeva breaks sūtra 25 in Nimbārka’s commentary into two separate sūtras.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Baladeva.

[2]:

Not quoted by others.