Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.8 (correct conclusion, continued)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.8 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that on account (of the similar) name (there is sameness of the vidyās), (we reply:) that has been said, on the other hand, (there is) that too (i.e. the identity of names) (even in the absence of identity of the objects named).”

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

“If it be objected that on account of name” the vidyās must be identical,—(we reply:) Under the aphorism: “Or not, on account of the difference of subject-matter” (Brahma-sūtra 3.3.7) it has been shown the more identity of names is of no great force. “On the other hand,” names may be identical even when the subject-matters enjoined are different; just as the name ‘Agni-hotra’ applies to the regular Agni-hotra, and to the Agni-hotra which is a part of the ceremony called ‘Kuṇḍapāyinām ayanam’.^[1]

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected that “on account of name”, i.e. on account of the name ‘udgītha-meditation’, the udgītha-vidyās are identical—(we reply:) The reply to this has been given under the aphorism: “Or not, on account of the difference of subject-matter” (Brahma-sūtra 3.3.7). That is, the difference of vidyās being established on the ground of the difference of introductory parts, mere identity of names cannot make the vidyās identical. Moreover, even two different subject-matters may have identical names, just as the name ‘Agni-hotra’ applies to the regular Agni-hotra and to the Agni-hotra which is a part of the ceremony called ‘Kuṇḍa-pāyinām ayanam’, and just as the First-Day sacrifice is to be observed both in the Twelve-Days’ sacrifice and in the Gavāmayana sacrifice.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 9 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic that in the case of the ekāntin devotees, there is no combination of all the attributes of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: “If it be objected that on account of (the similarity of) name (i.e. because both the svamiṣṭha and ekāntin are called ‘worshipper of Brahman’) (the ekāntin, too, must be called ‘worshipper of Brahman’) (the ekāntin, too, must meditate on all the attributes of the Lord), (we reply:) that has been said (under the previous sūtra), on the contrary, there is that^[2]”. That is, there is an instance to the effect, viz. the meditation on the golden Person^[3] and that on the ether^[4] have both the name ‘udgītha-meditation’, yet the attributes of the one are not combined in the other.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

A particular religious ceremony in which ewers or pitchers are used for drinking.

[2]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.9, pp. 123-124, Chap. 3.

[3]:

Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.6.9.

[4]:

Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.9.2.