Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.2

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.2 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that on account of the differences (of the object of meditation, there is) no (identity of vidyā), (we reply:) (there may be repetition) even with regard to one (vidyā).”

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

If it be objected: the object of meditation is not the same, otherwise the same vidyā would not have been repeated in different Scriptures. Hence the vidyās are different—(we reply:) No, because the repetition of one and the same vidyā is appropriate sometimes, because the readers are different, and sometimes for making the topic clear.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: the same vidyās are often found repeated in the very same form in different sections. Hence the object to be meditated on must be different, and so the vidyās cannot be identical,—

We reply: Such repetitions of the same vidyās in different sections are quite reasonable, as they serve a useful purpose. The same vidyā, set forth in one branch, is set forth again in the same form in other branches for the benefit of the different readers of those branches. If there be differences in some parts, then the device of the combination of points is to be resorted to.^[1] In the case of one and the same branch, on the other hand, the readers being the same, every section deals with a different vidyā, since the texts are mutually sufficient by themselves.^[2]

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

Interpretation different, viz, “If it be objected that on account of the differences (of details) (there is) no (oneness of vidyā), (we reply:) (there may be difference of details) even in (one vidyā)”. That is, the prima facie objector holds that the same vidyā is mentioned with different particulars in different places, e.g. in connection with the Pañcāgni-vidyā, five fires are spoken of in the Chāndogya, but six in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. This proves that the two Pañcāgni-vidyās are not identical. The answer is that such differences of details are permissible even in the case of one and the same vidyā. If two vidyās agree in all essential points, the difference in some details by no means makes them two separate vidyās.^[3]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

As before, he does not raise the problem of the identity of vidyās at all, but only the problem whether Brahman is known from all the Vedas or not. Hence the sūtra: “If it be objected that on account of difference (i.e. the different accounts of Brahman), (Brahman is) not (designated in all branches), (we reply:) even in the same (branch) (other attributes of Brahman are mentioned)”. That is, if it be objected that Brahman is designated differently in different Upaniṣads,—e.g. in one place He is depicted as knowledge and bliss (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.9.28), in another as omniscient and all-knowing (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.9),—and as such the same Brahman is not set forth by all the Upaniṣads—the reply is that in the same Upaniṣad where Brahman is designated as knowledge and bliss, He is designated as omniscient as well. Hence all branches speak of the same Brahman.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vide Brahma-sūtra 3.3.5.

[2]:

The sense is as follows: If one and the same vidyā be repeated in different Upaniṣads and so on, then there must evidently be some reasonable explanation for such a repetition. The prima facie objector points out that such a repetition serves no purpose and hence we must hold that really there is no repetition of the same vidyā, hut that each is a new and separate vidyā, concerned with a different object. The answer to this is that such a repetition of one of the same vidyā in different branches of the Vedas is not meaningless, but serves two purposes:—

(a) First, such a repetition is for the benefit of the different readers of the different branches of the Vedas. Each and every person does not evidently study each and every branch of the Vedas, but may read only one or some. A man, e.g. who studies the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, may not study the Chāndogya as well, and vice versa. Hence one and the same vidyā is set forth in both these Upaniṣads in order that both these persons may equally have an access to the vidyā in question.

(b) Secondly, such a repetition serves to rectify possible mistakes, and make the topic clearer and confirm what has been already said.

Thus, the fact that we meet with the same vidyā in different branches gives rise to no inconsistency. In the case of one and the same branch, however, the above two purposes being absent, there is no such repetition. Hence here every section deals with a different vidyā.

[3]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.3.2, pp. 757-758; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.3.2, pp. 175-176.

[4]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.2.