Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.9 (correct conclusion, end)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.9 by Roma Bose:

“And on account of universality, (it is) appropriate.”

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

As the praṇava, mentioned in the beginning, is the object to be meditated on, in all the udgītha-meditations in the Chandogya, it is “appropriate” that the word ‘udgītha’, mentioned in the middle-in the text: “They took the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2,1), too should really imply the praṇava. In the Chāndogya the praṇava, a pari of the udgītha, is to be meditated on under the aspect of the vital-breath; in the Vājasaneyaka, the entire udgītha,—as such, the vidyās are different.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

In the first chapter of the Chandogya, various udgītha-meditations are mentioned. Now, the praṇava,—introduced in the text: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.1),—is the common object to be meditated on as a part of the udgītha. So it is “appropriate” that the word ‘udgītha’, mentioned in the middle in the text: “Then, forsooth, the gods took the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.1), too should really imply the praṇava. It is often found that a word denoting the whole denotes its parts, as e.g. when one part of a piece of cloth is burnt, it is said that the cloth is burnt. This being so, in the Chāndogya, the praṇava alone, denoted by the term ‘udgītha’ and a part of the udgītha, is the object to be meditated on under the aspect of the vital-breath. In Vājasaneyaka, by the term ‘udgītha’ the entire udgītha, that winch the singer of the udgītha sings, is to be understood, i.e. that, alone is to be meditated on under the aspect of the vital-breath. Hence, it is established that the udgītha-meditation mentioned in the Chāndogya is different from the udgītha-meditation mentioned in the Vājasaneyaka.

Here ends the section entitled “Difference” (2).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

They take it as an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation different, viz. It is said in the Chāndogya (1.1.1) that the ‘Om’ is to be meditated on as the udgītha. Here the Om and the udgītha are designated as standing in a relation of co-ordination (sāmanādhikaraṇa). Now the problem is what exactly this co-ordination between the two implies,—whether adhyāsa or conscious voluntary super-imposition of one object upon another and thereby thinking the two as identical; apavāda or bādha, i.e. the negation of the former false knowledge of a thing by the latter correct knowledge; or finally viśeṣaṇa, i.e. qualification, distinguishing the thing qualified from other things. The last is the correct view. The udgītha here specializes and thereby restricts the Om which extends over the entire Veda,—i.e. only that Om which is a part of the udgītha is to be meditated on here and not the Om which extends over the entire Veda. Hence the sūtra: “On account of the extension (of the Om to the entire Veda), (the view that the term udgītha expresses a specialization of the Om is) appropriate”.^[1]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He too takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation different, viz. In the text: “Let one meditate on the syllable Om, the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.1), the Om and the udgītha are mentioned separately. The problem is whether they are to be meditated on separately or co-ordinately. The prima facie view is that they are to be meditated on separately, since they are mentioned separately. But the correct conclusion is that the udgītha qualifies the praṇava and as such the praṇava is the object to be meditated on here. Hence the sūtra; “And on account of the universality (of the praṇava as the object to be meditated on), (the view that the praṇava is qualified by the udgītha is) appropriate”. That is, just as the praṇava is designated as the object to be meditated on in the introductory passage, so in the subsequent passages too. Hence here the object to be meditated is the praṇava as qualified by the udgītha, and not the praṇava and the udgītha.^[2]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 10 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the attributes of infancy and the like too are to be included in the meditations on Him. Hence the sūtra: “And on account of all-pervasiveness, (this is) consistent”. That is, the Lord is all-pervading in spite of His states of infancy and the like, since He is not limited by those attributes of infancy and so on. Hence the meditation on the Lord as possessed of these attributes is perfectly consistent.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.3.9, pp. 766ff.; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.3.9, pp. 177-178.

[2]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 3.3.9, pp. 296-298, Part 9.

[3]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.10, pp. 127-128, Chap. 3.