Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.29

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.29 by Roma Bose:

“There is meaning of the going (of the soul) in a two-fold way (i.e. only if it discards both demerit and merit), for otherwise there is contradiction.”

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

“There is meaning of the going” through the cessation, without distinction, of good and evil deeds. If the good deeds follow (the soul), then immediately after the enjoyment of their fruits, there must follow recurrence of births.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Apprehending the objection: It is not appropriate to hold that at the time of the soul’s separation from the body, it discards its good deeds (as well), as that may lead to undesirable results,—(the author) says:

“In a two-fold way,” i.e. through the cessation of both good and evil deeds at the time of the soul’s separation from the body, “there is meaning of the going”, i.e. the soul comes to attain its end immediately after the fall of the body. Otherwise, if it be admitted that bad deeds alone are discarded, and that good deeds—which are non-distinct (from the bad deeds in this respect)—are exhausted through the enjoyment of their fruits, the scriptural text: “His friends attain his good deeds” will be contradicted, as well as the going,—this is the sense. Further, there being recurrence of births at the completion of enjoyment, the scriptural text laying down (the soul’s) non-return will also come to be contradicted, viz. the text; “Those proceeding by this path return not to human existence” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.15.6). It cannot be said that he (i.e. the knower) does not go by it, since there is no mention in Scripture of the soul’s going through a different path. If it be said that the fruit of vidyā would be permanent,—(we reply:) there will be uncertainty of the fruit.^[1]

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Interpretation entirely different. He begins a new adhikaraṇa. In some texts, the soul is said to go through the path of gods after having discarded merits and demerits; but in some texts, it is simply said to discard its merits and demerits. Hence the problem, is whether the soul has to travel always through the path of gods for attaining Brahman. The answer is that there is no such necessity. The journey through the path of gods is not necessary for one who has attained identity with Brahman here and now. Hence the sūtra: “There is meaning of the going in two ways, (i.e. it is necessary in. certain cases, not necessary in others), otherwise there is contradiction (of texts)”.^[2]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

He takes this sūtra as laying down the prima facie view, thus: “There is meaning of the (soul’s) going in two ways, (i.e. only on the hypothesis that it discards a part of its merit and so on at the time of leaving the body and the rest on its way), for otherwise there is contradiction”. That is, if he is to discard all its merits and demerits at the time of its departure from the body, its subtle body too must be destroyed simultaneously. In that case, no going through the path of the gods will be possible on its part, a mere disembodied soul.^[3]

Nimbārka raises the problem and solves it in the next sūtra, as we shall see.

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He inverts the order of this and the next sūtra. Thus:—

Nimbārka and others

“Gaterartha-vattvam....” (sūtra 29).
“Upapannas tallakṣaṇārtho.....” (sūtra 30).

Śrīkaṇṭha

“Upapannas tal-lakṣaṇārtho....” (sūtra 29).
“Gater artha-vattvam....” (sūtra 30).

Interpretation too different, viz.:

Sūtra 29.—“Upapannas tal-lakṣaṇārtho....”: Here he concludes the prima facie view, viz. that the soul discards all its merits and demerits at the time of leaving the body. He interprets it exactly after Nimbārka^[4] (sūtra 30 in Nimbārka’s commentary), the fundamental difference being that while Nimbārka takes it to be stating the correct conclusion, Śrīkaṇṭha takes it to be stating the prima facie view only.

Sūtra 30.—“Gater artha-vattvam....”: He takes it to be stating the correct conclusion against the prima facie view stated above in three sūtras, thus: “There is meaning of the going in two ways, (i.e. only on the hypothesis that the soul discards a part of its merits and so on, i.e. karmas, at the time of its departure from the body, and the rest after crossing the river Virajā), for otherwise there is contradiction”. That is, if all the karmas of the soul are destroyed completely at the time of its departure from the body, it will become freed immediately and it would not be necessary for it to travel through the path of gods, attain Brahman, and then be freed. Hence the texts which designate the soul’s travelling through the path of gods to attain Brahman and release will come to be contradicted. Further, if the soul becomes freed as soon as it leaves the body, the texts which designate that the soul attains its real form only on approaching Brahman too will come to be contradicted. In order to avoid the contradiction of these two kinds of texts, it must be held that all the karmas of the soul do not decay completely as soon as it leaves the body. The fact is that though the vidyā of the soul leads it to travel through the path of gods, yet as actual release is not obtained until one directly approaches Brahman, some remainders of karmas still cling to the soul until it crosses the sphere of matter and actually attains the Lord.^[5]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 30 in his commentary. Here he concludes the section about the two paths of meditation. Hence the sūtra: “There is meaning of the path in two ways, (i.e. both the paths, viz. meditation on God, the sweet, and meditation on God, the majestic, have the power to lead to the Lord), for otherwise there is contradiction (i.e. the texts which designate both of them to be leading to the Lord will he contradicted)”.^[6]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

I.e. if it be urged that although the fruits of the good deeds of the knower, accompanying him, may entitle him to return, yet the fruit of his vidyā, which also accompanies him and which is permanent, entitles him to non-return—we point out that in that case, what exactly is going to be the fate of the knower, return or non-return, remains uncertain and ambiguous.

[2]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.3.29, pp. 803-804.

[3]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 3.3.29, p. 299, Part 2, Madras ed.

[4]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 3.3.29, pp. 332-333, Parts 10 and 11.

[5]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 3.3.30, pp. 333-334, Parts 10 and 11.

[6]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.30, p. 160, Chap. 3.