Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.7 (correct conclusion, 7-9)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.7 by Roma Bose:

“Or (there is) no (sameness of the vidyās), on account of the differences of the subject-matters, as in the case of being higher than the high.”

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

With regard to it we reply:

The vidyās are not identical. Having begun by designating the praṇava, which is a part of the udgītha, as the object to be worshipped, in the text: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.1^[1]), the text goes on to say: “They took the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.1^[2]); and hence in the Chāndogya, the praṇava,. a part of the udgītha, is enjoined as the object to be viewed as the vital-breath. In the Vājasaneyaka, on the other hand, in accordance with the introductory passage, containing no specification, viz. ‘“Let ns overcome (the demons) by the udgītha”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.1^[3]), the entire udgītha is the object to be viewed as the vital-breath. Hence, the introductory parts being thus different, the vidyās themselves must be so; just as in spite of the sameness of injunctions, viz. that the praṇava, which is a part of the udgītha, is to be viewed as the Highest Self,—the injunction that the udgītha is to be viewed as the golden Person is different from the injunction that it is to be viewed as qualified by the attributes of being higher than the high and so on.^[4]

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The author refutes the above view.

The words “or not” imply that the above view is to be rejected. The udgītha-meditations are not identical. Why? “On account of the difference of subject-matters”. The word ‘subject-matter’ means ‘introduction’, i.e. on account of the difference of the introductory parts. Thus, having begun with the praṇava,—which is a part of the udgītha, the object of the action of the singer of the udgītha,—as the object to be worshipped in the text: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.1), the text goes on to say: “They took the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.1); and hence in the Chandogya, the praṇava, a part of the udgītha, is stated as the object to be viewed as the vital-breath. In the Vājasaneyaka, on the other hand, in accordance with the introductory passage, containing no speci-fication, viz. ‘“Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.1), the entire udgītha is the object to be viewed as the vital-breath. Hence as the introductory parts are different, the objects enjoined too must be so; the things enjoined being different, the forms too must be so, and on account of that, the vidyās themselves must be different; just as, even in the same branch^[5], in spite of the sameness of injunctions, viz. that the praṇava, which is a part of the udgītha, is to be viewed as the Highest Self,—the injunction that it is to be viewed as the golden Person is different from the injunction that it is to be viewed as qualified by the attributes of being higher than the high and so on.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 8 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with an altogether different topic. It has been pointed out in the previous adhikaraṇa that while meditating on the Lord, all His attributes are to be combined. Now it is pointed out in this adhikaraṇa that that is the case with the svaniṣṭha devotees only, but in the case of the ekāntin devotees, there is no such combination. He interprets the word “prakaraṇa” in the sūtra as “prakṛṣṭa karaṇam”, i,e. excellent act, viz. devotion. Hence the sūtra; “Or (there is) no (combination of attributes in the case of the ekāntins) on account of the difference of devotion (i.e. because the devotion of the ekāntins is one-pointed, while that of the svaniṣṭha is universal), as in the case of being higher than the high, (i.e. just as the ekāntin worshipper of the golden Person in the sun does not combine the qualities of being higher than the high and so on).^[6]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[2]:

Not quoted by others.

[3]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja.

[4]:

I.e. in Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.6.9 it is said that sāman, i.e, the udgītha, is to be viewed, i.e. meditated on, as the golden Person within the sun; while in Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.9.2 it is said that the udgītha is to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes of being higher than the high and so on. Now, although in both cases the udgītha is the object enjoined to he meditated on, yet as it is to be meditated on under two different aspects, in the one case as a golden Person and in the other as higher than the high and so on,—the two udgītha-meditations are taken to be different. In the very same manner, here although the same udgītha is enjoined to be meditated on, yet since in the one case it is to be meditated on as a part, in the other as the whole, the two udgītha-meditatons are not identical.

[5]:

The rule is that meditations are different when the objects meditated on are different, whether in the same branch or in different branches. If the objects meditated on are not different, then the meditations are identical, in spite of repetition, and serve other purposes. See footnote 2, p. 578.

[6]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.2.8, pp. 122-123, Chap, 3.