Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.1

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.1 by Roma Bose:

“The understanding (i.e. what is understood) from all the vedāntas (is one), on account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest.”

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

Although mentioned in many places, meditation is one only, “On account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest”.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Thus, with a view to instigating one who desires salvation to the meditation on the Highest Self which is a means to attaining His nature, the attributes of the Highest Self have been stated. Now, although knowledge is a means to attaining the nature of the Highest Self, yet just as sacred texts, spiritual teachers and the like, though well-known, come to be productive of fruits only when meditated on, so the Highest Self, though well-known, comes to be productive of fruits only when meditated on. Now, we shall discuss the nature of vidyās or meditations on such a Supreme Brahman, as well as the problem whether these different vidyās^[1] are really identical or not, for ascertaining the combination or options of the details in them.

The Udgītha-vidyā,^[2] the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā,^[3] the Puruṣa-vidyā,^[4] the Dahara-vidyā,^[5] the Vaiśvānara-vidyā^[6] and the rest are mentioned by many schools. It will be shown later on that the peculiar features or details, mentioned in connection with each particular vidyā, are to be combined together. However, the arrangement of the syllables in the aphorism is as follows: The same vidyā is mentioned in many Vedan tas. On the doubt, viz. whether it is different, or whether the same vidyā is mentioned in many places,—if the prima facie view he: As it is mentioned in texts again and again without any specification, and because of the force of context, it is different. For this very reason, surely, the restriction with regard to the imparting of knowledge to the followers of the Atharva-veda who practise the head-rite^[7] mentioned in the passage: “Let one declare this knowledge of Brahman to them alone by whom, however, the head-rite has been practised according to rules” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.2.10), is reasonable; otherwise the head-rite, a part of vidyā, being open to the followers of all schools, the above restriction will be meaningless,—

We reply: “The understanding from all the Vedāntas”, i.e. the meditation which is known from all, i.e. many, Vedāntas should be known to be one only. Why? “On account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest.” Among these, ‘injunction’ means an injunction like ‘one should know’, ‘one should meditate’. The words ‘and the rest’ imply connection, form and name, mentioned as the reasons for the non-difference of Karmas, in the aphorism laying down the correct conclusion under the section treating of different schools in the Pūrva-tantra, viz. “Or, one, on account of non-difference of connection, form, injunction and name” (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 2.4.9^[8]). That is, the meditations are identical, on account of the non-difference of their injunctions, connections, forms and names,—just as the obligatory Agni-hotra^[9], mentioned in many branches, such as “He performs the Agni-hotra” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.24.1, 2), is one, on account of the non-difference of injunction; just as the Vaiśvānara-vidyā is recorded in both the Chāndogya (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.11-5.18) and Vājasaneyaka (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.9), and here on account of the non-difference of injunctions, viz. “He meditates on Vaiśvānara” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.12.2-5.13.2, etc.), as well as of forms, name and of connection, viz. the attainment of Brahman, the vidyās are identical. In this case, the root ‘as’ indicates that the injunction is same; the form, viz. Vaiśvānara, is the same; and the name also is the same, viz. Vaiśvānara-vidyā.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Literal interpretation same. But the fundamental difference is that according to Śaṅkara, all these vidyās are concerned with Saguṇa or lower Brahman only, and are not as such means to the attainment of the Nirguṇa or the higher Brahman. Some of them lead to the attainment of results here, while others lead to salvation on gradually by way of generating knowledge.^[10]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He does not refer to the various vidyās, mentioned in the various Upaniṣads. In fact, as we shall see, he does not regard this pāda as dealing with the vidyās at all. He interprets the word: “Sarva-vedānta-pratyam” as “Sarva-veda-antapratyam”, The word “anta” means settled conclusion. Hence the sūtra: “The settled conclusion of all the Vedas is the knowledge (of Brahman), on account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest”. That is all the Vedas seek to teach Brahman, since all of them enjoin meditation on Brahman.^[11]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The vidyās are the various meditations mentioned in the various Upaniṣads and so on.

[2]:

Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3 and Chānd 1.2. Vide Brahma-sūtra 3.3.6.

[3]:

Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.6; Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.6.3; and Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14. Vide Brahma-sūtra 3.3.19.

[4]:

Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.16-3.37 and Aitareya-āraṇyaka 10.64. Vide Brahma-sūtra 3.3.24.

[5]:

Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.1.7 and Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.1-8.6. Vide Brahma-sūtra 3.3.38.

[6]:

Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.0 and Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.11-5.18. Vide Brahma-sūtra 3.3.55.

[7]:

For explanation see Vedānta-kaustubha 3.3.3 below.

[8]:

P. 200, vol. 1.

[9]:

Agni-hotra is an oblation to fire, chiefly of milk, oil and sour gruel, and there are two kinds of it, nitya or of constant obligation and kāmya or optional.

[10]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṃkara’s commentary) 3.3.1. p. 754.

[11]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.1.