Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)
by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words
English translation of the Brahma-sutra 3.3.21 (correct conclusion, 21-22), 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 3.3.21 (correct conclusion, 21-22)
English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.21 by Roma Bose:
“Or not, on account of difference.”
Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):
But the correct conclusion is that “on account of the difference” of place, (such) a combination is “not” appropriate.
Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)
(The author) refutes (the above view).
The names are “not” to be combined. Why? “On account of difference,” i.e. on account of the difference of place. Just as the attribute, stated of a teacher when seated, does not belong to him when walking, so exactly on account of the difference of the forms of Brahman,—who is one indeed,—in consequence of His connection with those respective places, (viz. the orb of the sun and the eye), there is difference of vidyās, and as such no combination. Thus, in one case, truth is to be meditated on as connected with the locality of the sun, and here the name: “His secret name is ‘Day’—this is in reference to the presiding deities” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.5.3) is appropriate. The insertion of such a name to the locality of the eye is not possible. In the other case, on the other hand, it is to be meditated on as connected with the locality of the eye, and here the name: ‘His secret name is ‘I’—this is in reference to the self” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.5.4) is appropriate. There can be no insertion of it to the locality of the sun. In the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, on the contrary, there is no difference of place, since the object to be meditated on is, in both the cases, situated within the heart.
Comparative views of Baladeva:
This is sūtra 22 in his commentary. It answers the prima facie view. He reads “aviśeṣāt” instead of “viśeṣāt”. Hence the sūtra: “Or not, (i.e. the God-possessed souls are not to be worshipped as possessed of all God-like attributes,) on account of (their) non-difference (from other souls)”. That is, the God-possessed souls too are after all jīvas and hence they are to be highly venerated, but not worshipped like the Lord Himself.[1]