Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.10

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.10 by Roma Bose:

“On account of the non-difference of everything (i.e. everywhere, viz. chāndogya and bṛhadāraṇyaka), those (qualities are to be inserted) elsewhere (viz. in the Kauṣītaki).”

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

In the Chāndogya as well as in the Vājasaneyaka, under the dialogue of the sense-organs, the vital-breath, endowed with the attributes of being the oldest and the best, is designated as the object to be worshipped, and also speech and the rest are designated as possessed of the attributes of being the richest and so on; and those attributes are ascribed to the vital-breath. In the dialogue of the sense-organs in the Kauṣītaki, on the other hand, the attributes of speech and the rest are stated, but are not ascribed to the vital-breath. With regard to it, we reply: “Elsewhere”, i.e. in the dialogue of the sense-organs in the Kauṣītaki as well, they are to be ascribed to the vital-breath, as in all the three dialogues speech and the rest are said to be under the control of the vital-breath,—which is the cause of the seniority and excellence of the latter.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

While in one place (viz. in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka) the word ‘udgītha’ refers to the whole, in another place (viz. in the Chāndogya) it refers to a part only and as such does not relate to the whole,—hence the two udgītha-meditations are different. Likewise since in some cases the vital-breath is designated as endowed with the attributes of being the richest and the like, in some cases, again, not so endowed, the meditations on the vital-breath too are different,—the author is refuting this view now by the maxim of the combination of special features.^[1]

In the dialogue of the sense-organs, the Chandogas as well as the Vājasaneyins demonstrate the vital-breath, endowed with the attributes of being the oldest and the best, as the object to be worshipped thus: “He who, verily, knows the oldest and the best, becomes, forsooth, the oldest and the best of his own people. The vital-breath, verily, is the oldest and the best” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.1.1^[2]) and so on; and they demonstrate the attributes of speech and the rest, such as: being the richest and so on, thus: “These divinities, verily, disputed for self-superiority”^[3] and so on, “Disputing for self-superiority” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.1.7^[4]) and so on; as well as establish the excellence of the vital-breath on the ground that speech and the rest and the body have their existence as well as activities under the control of the vital-breath; and finally ascribe the attributes of speech and the rest, such as, being the richest and so on, to the vital-breath, the oldest and the best, thus: “Then, verily, speech said to him: ‘If I am the richest? you are the richest’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.1,13^[5]) and so on. Thus, according to them, the object to be worshipped is the vital-breath, endowed with the attributes of being the oldest, the best, the richest and so on, as subserving speech and the rest.

In the dialogues of the sense-organs in the branches of the Kauṣītaki and the rest, on the other hand, the excellence of the vital-breath is demonstrated, but the attributes of speech and the rest are not ascribed to it (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 2.14).

The attributes in question are those belonging to speech, the eye, the ear and the mind,—namely, being the richest being the support, being prosperity and being the abode (respectively), to be known from the following texts: “He who, verily, knows the richest.... Speech, forsooth, is the richest” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.1.2; Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.1.2), “He who, verily, knows the support.... The eye, forsooth, is the support” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.1.3; Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.1.3), “He who, verily, knows prosperity.... The ear, verily, is prosperity” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.1.4; Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.1.4), “He who, verily, knows the abode.... The mind, verily, is the abode” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.15; Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.1.5) and so on.

On the doubt, viz, whether these attributes are to be included in the meditations on the vital-breath of the Kauṣītakins, or not, the prima facie view is that since they have not been mentioned in those scriptural texts as belonging to the vital-breath, they are not to be so included.

With regard to it, we reply: “These,” i.e. the attributes of being richest and the best belonging to speech and so on, are to be accepted as belonging to the vital-breath, “elsewhere” than in the Chāndogya and the rest, i.e. in the meditations on the vital-breath of the Kauṣītakins as well. Why? “On account of the non-difference of everything,” i.e. because in all the three 'dialogues the cause of the seniority and excellence of the vital-breath, the object to be meditated on, is the very same. Just as in the meditations on the vital-breath in the Chāndogya and the rest, the dependence of speech and the rest and of the body on the vital-breath, as well as the connection of the vital-breath with the attributes of being the richest and the rest have been stated with a view to establishing the seniority and excellence of the vital-breath,—so in the meditations on the vital-breath in the Kauṣītaki too, the attributes of speech and the rest, such as being the richest and so on, have been stated with the same view to establishing the seniority and excellence of the vital-breath. The text: “Then these divinities said to Father Prajāpati: ‘Who among us is the best?’ He, Prajāpati, said: ‘That one among you, on whose departure the body appears to be most miserable, is the best’. Then speech went out”,^[6] and so on, shows that speech and the rest, their attributes, as well as the body depend on the vital-breath. Here, their own attributes of being the richest and the rest are not attributed to the vital-breath by speech and the rest. Hence they are to be ascribed to the vital-breath,—this is established.

Here ends the section entitled “Non-difference of everything” (3).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha:

The interpretation of the phrase: “Sarvābhedāt” different, viz. “on account of the non-difference of the prāṇa-vidyā in the three Upaniṣads”. That is, the meditation on the vital-breath is everywhere the same, and hence the special features mentioned in one place are to be ascribed to others.^[7]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 11 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the acts of the Lord. Hence the sūtra; “(The acts of the Lord, viz. the deeds performed by him in His infancy and so on are eternal) on account of the non-difference of all (viz. of the Lord and His companions) they (manifest themselves) elsewhere (i.e, in another place and time)”. That is, the Lord and His companions, viz. the freed souls, exist subsequently in other places and times and enact the same parts. In this sense, those acts of the Lord which He performs through His cit-śakti are eternal, while those acts which He performs through matter and so on are non-eternal.^[8]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Designated under Brahma-sūtra 3.3.5.

[2]:

An exactly similar passage—omitting only the word ‘svānām’, is Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.1.1.

[3]:

This is evidently a misquotation, since it is traceable neither in the Chāndogya-upaniṣad nor in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad.

[4]:

Cf. Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.1.6.—“Now the sense-organs disputed among themselves about self-superiority.”

[5]:

Cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.1.4.—“She (i.e. speech) said: ‘Verily, werein I am the richest, therein you are the richest’.”

[6]:

Cf. the very similar passages in Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.1.7-5.1.8.

[7]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.3.10. p. 770; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.3.10, p. 171; Quoted by Śrīkaṇṭha, Baladeva 3.3.10, pp. 298ff.

[8]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.11, pp. 130-133, Chap. 3.