Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.25

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.25 by Roma Bose:

“On account of the difference of the matter of merging and so on.”

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

In meditation there is no-insertion of the sacred formulae like: “Pierce all, pierce the heart”^[1], as well as of the sacrificial acts like Prayargya^[2] and the rest, mentioned in the passage: “The gods, forsooth, held a sacrificial session” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.1.1, l^[3]) and so on. Why? “On account of the difference of the matter of piercing and so on” from meditation.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now, the following question is being considered: Just as the meditation on the person is a subsidiary part of the meditation on Brahman, it being mentioned in close proximity,—so are the sacred formulas and the sacrificial acts, to be stated below, to be inserted in the meditation on Brahman as its subsidiary parts, they, too, being mentioned in close proximity, or not?

In the beginning of their Upaniṣads, the followers of the Atharva-veda record sacred formulae like: “Pierce all, pierce the heart, cleave the veins, cleave the head, divide into three parts” and so on. That is, O Deity! ‘pierce’, i.e, tear off’, ‘all’ the limbs of my enemy. Thus, (1) ‘pierce his heart’, (2) ‘cleave his veins’, (3) ‘cleave his head’. In this way, may my enemy be ‘divided’, i.e, disjoined, ‘into three parts’.

In the beginning of the Rahasya-brāhmaṇa, the Tāṇḍins also, the singers of the Sāma, read the sacred formulae: “O God Savitṛ! produce the sacrifice, produce” (Chandoga-mantra-brāhmaṇa 1.1.1^[4]).

The Śāṭyāyanin’s record: “Thou art a white horse, tawny and black”.

The Kaṭhas and the Taittirīyakas record: “May Mitra give us weal, may Varuṇa” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 1.1) and so on.

The Aitareyins too record a Mahā-vrata-brāhmaṇa: “Verily, Indra became great by killing Vṛtra”.

The Kauṣītakins too record a Mahā-vrata-brāhmaṇa thus: “Verily, Prajāpati is the whole year, his self is the Mahāvrata”.

The Vājasaneyins, on the other hand, record a Pravargyya-[Pravargya-]brāhmaṇa in the beginning of their Upaniṣad thus: “Verily, the gods held a sacrificial session” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.1.1, 1).

Here the doubt is, viz. whether the sacred formulae and the sacrificial acts like Pravargya and the rest, mentioned in certain Vidyās, are to be comprised under those vidyās as their subsidiary parts, or not. The suggestion being: The inclusion of the sacred formulae as well as of the sacrificial works as the subsidiary parts of meditation is proper, they being mentioned in close proximity.

We reply: There is no inclusion. Why? “On account of the difference of the matter of piercing and so on,” That is, as the matter of piercing and so on, subserving certain magical practices that are different from meditation, is different from meditation, so the matter of piercing and so on, mentioned by those particular texts, are not fit to be applied to meditation. Thus, from the indication, viz. the power of the sacred formulae to exhibit their own sense,—which is stronger than (mere) proximity^[5]—it is deduced that the sacred formulae are subsidiary parts of works like magical practices, study and so on. From direct scriptural statement, which is stronger than (mere) proximity,^[6]—sacrificial works like Pravargya and the rest too are deduced to have an application to Jyotiṣṭoma and the like. Hence it is established that there is no inclusion of these in those (vidyās) as the subsidiary parts of meditation.

Here ends the section entitled “Piercing and so on” (10).

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 26 in his commentary. He too takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, though concerned with an entirely different problem, viz. whether like the sweet and majestic attributes of the Lord such as bliss, omnipotence, mentioned above, His destructive and fearful attributes too such as piercing and so on, are to be meditated on, or not. The answer is given here. He supplies the word “na” here from sūtra 3.3.22 (21 in Nimbārka’s commentary). Hence the sūtra: “(One who is desirous of release should not meditate on the Lord as possessed of the attributes of piercing and so on, on account of the difference of result (of such a meditation, i.e. because such a meditation does not lead to release as the meditation on the Lord as Sweet and Majestic does)”.^[7]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[2]:

Pravargya in a ceremony introductory to the Soma-sacrifice.

[3]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja, p. 1021, line 1.

[4]:

Vide [A Vedic Concordance], p. 491. This passage occurs in many other places. This text is found in many other treatises, vide e.g. Vj. Saṃ. 9.1; 11.7; 30.1; Taittirīya-saṃhitā 1.7.7, 1; 4.1.1, 2, etc.

[5]:

Vide Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.3.14.

[6]:

Op. cit.

[7]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.26, p. 151, Chap. 3.