Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.22 (correct conclusion, end)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.22 by Roma Bose:

“And (scripture) shows.”

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

The scriptural text, viz. “The form of this one is the very same as the form of that one” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.7.5^[1]), “shows” the absence of a combination of the attributes of that which is situated within the sun and that which is situated within the eye.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

In another place, a scriptural text concerned with transference “shows” the absence of a combination of the attributes of that which is situated in the sun and that which is situated in the eye. Thus, the scriptural text concerned with transference, viz. “The form, of this one is the very same as the form of that one” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.7.5) transfers the form of the Person abiding in the sun to the Person abiding in the eye. And this (text) clearly indicates the absence of a combination of attributes in such a case. If there were any combination of attributes, then the transference would have been meaningless,^[2] Hence it is established that there is no combination of the names.

Here ends the section entitled “The connection” (7).

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He takes this sūtra as constituting a new adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the Maṇḍala-vidyā, or the meditation on the Person within the orb of the sun, in the Chāndogya (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.6.6) and the Mahā-nārāyaṇa (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 12.2) Upaniṣads, and concludes that the two vidyās are identical, since Scripture “shows” their identity.^[3]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 23 in his commentary. He gives here a second reason why the God-possessed souls are not to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes of the Lord Himself: “And (Scripture, viz. Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.1.1) shows”. That is, the above text shows that Nārada, a God-possessed soul, approached Sanatkumāra with a view to learning about the Supreme Soul from him. This proves that the God-possessed souls are not perfect like the Lord. Hence they cannot be worshipped as possessed of His attributes.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Bhāskara.

[2]:

I.e, a special transference, identifying two things, is necessary only when the two things are naturally different. E.g. a king is not, as a rule, expressly mentioned to be rich, for it is understood that all kings are naturally rich. Hence we simply say: ‘He is a king’. But we say: ‘He is a servant and rich’, for the quality of being rich does not, as a rule, belong to servants and any exception has to be expressly mentioned. Similarly, since here the form of the person within the sun and the form of the person within the eye are expressly mentioned to be identical, it is clear that there is no natural identity between them, so that no combinations of their attributes, names and so on are possible.

[3]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 3.3.22, pp. 319-320, Part 9.

[4]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.23, p. 148, Chap. 3.