Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.19

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.18 by Roma Bose:

“In the same (branch) too, (it is) thus, (i.e. there is identity of vidyās), on account of non-difference.”

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

In a branch of the Vājasaneyins,^[1] i.e. in the ‘Mystery of fire’,^[2]  viz. in the section which beginning: “Let one meditate on truth as Brahman” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.6.3, 1^[3] ), continues: “Let one meditate on the self, consisting of mind” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.6.3, 2^[4]) and so on; as well as in the Bṛhadāranyaka text: “This person consists of mind” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.6.1^[5]), the meditation taught by Śāṇḍilya is recorded. And just as the vidyās, mentioned in different branches, are identical owing to the identity of the objects meditated on, so the Śāṇḍilya-vidyās, though mentioned in the same branch, are identical.^[6] The vidyās being the same, their special features are to be combined together.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now (the author) points out the identity of the meditations intuited by Śāṇḍilya.

The meditation taught by Śāṇḍilya is recorded in the ‘Mystery of Fire’ in a branch of the Vājasaneyins thus: “Let one meditate on truth as Brahman. Now, verily, this person consists of thought. With whatever thought he departs from this world, that he becomes on departing to the other world. Let him meditate on the self, consisting of mind, having the breath for its body, of the form of light, having true resolves, having the ether for its soul”^[8] (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.6.3, 1-2^[7]). In that very branch, i.e. in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, that meditation is recorded once again thus: “This person within this heart consists of mind, is of the nature of light, is like a grain of rice or a barley-corn. He, verily, is the ruler of all, the Lord of all, governs all this, whatsoever there is” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.6.1).

Here the doubt is as to whether the two vidyās mentioned in the ‘Mystery of Fire’ and Bṛhadāraṇyaka are identical or not. The suggestion being that on account of repetition the vidyās are different, just as on account of the five-fold repetition, the preliminary offerings are so,—

We reply: Just as the vidyās mentioned in different branches are the same, and consequently their special features are combined, so “in the same”, i.e. in the same branch, the vidyās are identical, and consequently their special features are combined. Why? “On account of non-difference,” i.e. because of the identity, in both the places, of the objects to be meditated on, viz. (the selves) endowed with the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest.

If it be objected: There may be identity of vidyās in both the cases, and the combination of the attributes like ‘being the ruler of all’ and so on. But the laying down, over again, of (the attributes like) ‘consisting of mind’ and the rest does not stand to reason,—for if there be the laying down of the unknown attributes in one place, then the realization of our purpose results simply through a combination of them elsewhere.^[9]—

We reply: No, because the mention of several already-mentioned attributes serves the purpose of recognition.^[10] Hence it is established that in both cases the vidyās are identical.

Here ends the section entitled “In the same” (6).

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 20 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the problem whether the Lord is to be meditated on as a pure soul or as possessed of a body. The prima facie view is that He is to be meditated on as a pure soul only, for if one is to meditate on the form of the Lord, then he will have to meditate on His eye sometimes, on His ears sometimes and so on and as such no uniform and uninterrupted flow of the devotional sentiment, which alone is the means to salvation, will be possible. The answer is given in this sūtra. He reads “samāna” instead of “samāne”. Hence the sūtra: “Even (in the meditation on the form of the Lord, the sentiment is) the same thus, on account of the non-difference (of the Lord’s different limbs, such as eyes, and so on, with His very self)”. That is, just as a golden image is gold throughout and by looking at the different parts of the image, viz. the eyes and so on, one does not get different ideas, but only one idea, viz. that of gold, so the different parts of the Lord are identical with the Lord Himself and hence they do not give rise to different ideas, but to one idea of the Lord. Hence the meditation on the Lord as having a form does indeed lead to release.^[11]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The followers of the white Yajur-veda.

[2]:

The name of the tenth book of the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa.

[3]:

P. 806, line 14. Quoted by Rāmānuja and Bhāskara.

[4]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[5]:

Op, cit.

[6]:

Vide Vedānta-pārijata-saurabha 3.3.2.

[7]:

The phrase ‘having the ether for its soul’ is put immediately after ‘of the form of light’. The text really is: “.... having the form of light, having the ether for its soul, changing its shape at will, swift as thought, having true resolves, having true purposes....”

[8]:

P. 806, lines 14-16. Cf. a very similar Śāṇḍilya-vidyā in Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1-4.

[9]:

I.e. the attributes like ‘being the ruler of all’, etc,, mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad, but not in the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa,—are to be inserted in the latter, and as such they serve a useful purpose. But the attributes like ‘consisting of mind’, etc.—mentioned in both the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad and Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa—are mere useless repetitions, serving no purpose.

[10]:

I.e. in order that we may recognize the two vidyās to be identical, there must be mentioned some features common to both. Hence the repetition of certain attributes in two identical vidyās is not useless.

[11]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.20, p. 145, Chap. 3.—“Evam api cakṣurādīnām vailakṣaṇyena bhāne’pi samāna eka-rasaḥ sa eva hiraṇya-pratimādi vat bhagvān vodhyaḥ.”