Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 3.3.16, including the commentary of Nimbarka and sub-commentary of Srinivasa known as Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and Vedanta-kaustubha resepctively. Also included are the comparative views of important philosophies, viz., from Shankara, Ramanuja, Shrikantha, Bhaskara and Baladeva.

Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.16

< Previous

Next >

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.16 by Roma Bose:

“(There is the) understanding of the self (in the Taittirīya) as in other (places), on account of what follows.”

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

In the text: “Another internal self” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5^[1]), by the term ‘self’ there is the “understanding of” the Supreme Soul alone, just as in the passage: “The soul, verily, was this, one alone, in the beginning” (Aitareya-āraṇyaka 2.4.1^[2]), by the term ‘self’ the Supreme Self alone is meant. Further, another text too, subsequent to the text about that which consists of bliss, viz. “He desired: ‘May I be many’” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5^[3]), supports this meaning.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. Since we know that in the preceding cases the term ‘self’ refers to what is not the self, it cannot be said that in the text; “Another internal self is that which consists of bliss” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5) the term ‘self’ refers to the Self,—the author replies:

In the text: “Another internal self” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5), by the term ‘self’ there is the “understanding of the self”, i.e. the apprehension of the self, or the Supreme Soul alone. “As in other (places),” i.e. just as in a text other than the text; “Another internal self is that which consists of bliss” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5),—viz. in the Aitareya-text; “The self, verily, was this, one alone, in the beginning, there was nothing else blinking. He thought: ‘Shall I create worlds?’ He created these worlds” (Aitareya-āraṇyaka 2.4.1), by the term ‘self’ the Soul is understood, so is the case here. This is definitely ascertained also from a text which is subsequent to the text concerned with the soul consisting of bliss, viz. from the text: “He desired: ‘May I be many’” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.6).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

They begin a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras),concerned with a different problem, viz. a discussion about a passage in the Aitareya-āraṇyaka (2.4.1). The question is as to whether the term ‘self’ in this passage stands for Brahman or for Hiraṇyagarbha. The answer is: “(There is) the understanding of the self (i.e. Brahman) (by the term ‘self’ in the passage), as in other (places) (i.e. in Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1, etc.), on account of what follows (i.e. the word ‘perceives’)”.^[4]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He continues the above topic, viz. whether the selves consisting of food and so on are to be meditated on or not. The answer is that as the self consisting of bliss is nothing but the Supreme Brahman, that alone is to be meditated on and not the other selves. Hence the sūtra: “(In Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5 by the term ‘self’ there is) the understanding of the self (i.e. Brahman), as in other places (i.e. in Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1, etc.), (this is known also) from what follows”. Thus, literal interpretation is the same, though import different.^[5]