Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.27

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.27 by Roma Bose:

“In passing away (there is a complete abandonment of merit and demerit), on account of there being nothing to be crossed, for, thus others (declare).”

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

At the time (of the soul’s) departure from the body, it completely abandons (its) merits and demerits. Why? Because after (its) separation from the body, there is no more experience “to be crossed” (i.e. undergone) through these two. This very thing others declare thus: “Verily, when one is bodiless, pleasure and pain do not touch him” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.12.1^[1]), “This serene being, having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.3.4; 8.12.3^[2]) and so on. This being so, the decay of works which has actually taken place at the time of the soul’s separation from the body, is recorded to take place after it crosses the river in the text: “He crosses that river Virajā. Then he discards good and evil deeds” (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 1.4^[3]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

An investigation into the abandoning of sins by a knower and taking (by others) was undertaken above. Now we shall consider the time when such an abandoning of merit and demerit takes place.

The doubt is as to whether some portions of the merits and demerits of a knower decay at the time of his separation from the final body, while some portions of these decay on the way, when, having left the body, he is moving towards the world of Brahman; or whether such an abandonment takes place only at the time of his separation from the body. Here the prima facie view is: Having begun thus: “Having reached the path of gods, he comes to the world of fire” (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 1.3), the Kauṣītakins record: “He comes to the river Virajā, crosses it with the mind; then he discards good and evil deeds” (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 1.4). As here such an abandonment appears to take place immediately after he crosses the river, and as in the Upaniṣads of the Tāṇḍins too, viz. in the text: “Having shaken off the evils, as a horse his hair” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.13.1), such an abandonment appears to take place at the time of his separation from the final body, it follows that he abandons some of his good and evil deeds at the time of Ms separation from the final body, and of some on the way, both these texts being (equally) authoritative:

With regard to it, we say: “In passing away”. “In passing away,” i.e. when the soul is going to the next world, viz. at the time of its departure from the body alone, a knower discards his merits and demerits. Why? “On account of there being nothing to be crossed; or no good fruit to be attained through merits, and no evil fruit to be attained through demerits subsequently to the soul’s leaving the body, there existing, subsequently to that, the fruit of vidyā alone, consisting in the attainment of Brahman’s nature.

“Thus others,” i.e. the followers of the other schools too record that subsequently to the fall of the body, there is no fruit of work to be undergone by a knower, except the attainment of the nature of Brahman, thus: “Verily, when one is bodiless, pleasure and pain do not touch him” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.12.1), “This serene being, having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in his own form” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.3.4; 8.12.3). The decay of karmas, which has actually taken place at the time of the soul’s departure from the body, is recorded in the text of the Kauṣītakins to take place immediately after it crosses the river Virajā, thus: “He crosses the river Virajā with the mind; then he discards good and evil deeds” (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 1.4),—this is to be understood here. Hence it is that the Tāṇḍins and the rest record that the abandonment takes place actually at the time of the soul’s separation from the body, thus: “Shaking off the evils like a horse”, etc.

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

Literal interpretation same, hut he takes this (and the following two sūtras) as representing the prima facie view.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 28 in his commentary. He concludes the topic, viz. whether the worship of the Lord is obligatory on the part of the freed or not. He interprets the word, “sāmparāya” as love of the Lord. ‘Samparāya’ means ‘samparayanti tattvāni yasmin’, i.e. one in whom all the truths meet, viz. the Lord, and love of the Samparāya is ‘sāmparāya’. Hence the sūtra: “When the love of the Lord (has arisen), (i.e. when the soul has become free), (it is no longer obligatory for it to practise meditation), on account of there being nothing to be crossed (i.e. there is no bondage any more), for thus others declare”.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja.

[2]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja.

[3]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[4]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.28, pp. 155-158, Chap. 3.