Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.30

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.30 by Roma Bose:

“(The going of the soul is) appropriate, on account of finding things which are marks of that, (viz. connection with the body), as in ordinary life.”

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

In spite of the decay of all the karmas of a worshipper of Brahman at the time of his separation from the body, the path (i.e. his going through the path of gods) is “appropriate”. Why? “On account of finding things which are marks” of connection with the body and the rest, in the passages: “Having attained the form of supreme light, he is completed in his own form” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.3.4^[1]), “He roams about there, laughing, playing and enjoying” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.25.1^[2]) and so on,—just as a royal servant attains mundane ends. The sense is that in spite of the decay of all works and of the gross body, he continues to retain the subtle body, through the power of vidyā, in, order that he may go to a distinguished place. Immediately after his separation from that, the knower, having attained the form mentioned in Scripture, comes to attain the nature of Brahman.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. if it be admitted that there is the decay of all works at the time of the soul’s leaving the body, there must be the destruction of the subtle body too at the same time. This being so, the path defined as the path of gods is “inappropriate”,—(the author) says:

In spite of the decay of all the works of a knower at the time of his leaving the body, the path of gods is “appropriate”. Why? “On account of finding things which are marks of that,” i.e. on account of finding things that indicate that even a knower whose good and evil deeds have decayed and whose real form has become manifest has connection with body and the rest. The things which are marks of his connection with the body and so on, not brought about by karmas, is found in the following scriptural texts: “Stainless, he attained the highest equality” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.3), “Having attained the form of highest light, he is completed in his own form” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.3.4; 8,12.3), “He roams about there, laughing, playing, enjoying” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.12.3), “He becomes a self-ruler, he comes to wander at will in all the worlds” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.25.1), “He becomes onefold, he becomes three-fold” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.26.2) and so on. That is, just as in ordinary life, a royal servant attains his ends through the grace of the king, though he himself is unable to accomplish them through his own efforts, so through the grace of the Highest Person,, the knower obtains a supremely wonderful body and so on, not brought about by karmas. The intention is this: when through the influences of vidyā, the knower, whose karmas have decayed, comes to attain a wonderful body and the rest,—not brought about by karmas,—why should not vidyā, for the sake of bestowing its own fruit, viz. the attainment of Brahman, cause the subtle body to persist through its own power in order to enable him to go through the path of gods, even on the complete decay of all karmas and of the gross body which is the means of enjoying pleasures and pain? The sense is this: The subtle body continues up to the soul’s reaching the river Virajā, and immediately after that merges in the cause (viz. Brahman). This (the author) will state under the aphorism: “Those in the Highest, for so (Scripture) says” (Brahma-sūtra 4.2.14). Hence it is established that there is the decay of all karmas at the time of the soul’s separation from the final body.

Here ends the section entitled “The passing away” (12).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Interpretation absolutely different,—viz. “(The view that the going through the path of gods holds good in some cases only and not universally is) appropriate, on account of finding a purpose characterized thereby (i.e. a purpose for going)”. That is, only those who meditate on the qualified Brahman go through the path of gods to attain Brahman, for in their ease only, such a going has any meaning and purpose, viz. the attainment of certain results, to be reached only through going to different places, as declared by Scripture (e.g. Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 1.5-1.6). But in the case of the knowers, there is no necessity for such a going, since they attain identity with Brahman here and now immediately after the removal of the veil of nescience.^[3]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

Here he answers the prima facie view stated under the previous aphorism. Similar to Nimbārka’s interpretation, though the interpretation of the words “upapanna” and “lokavat” different, thus: “(The view that there is the complete decay of all works at the time of the soul’s separation from the body is) appropriate, on account of finding things which are marks of that, (i.e. soul’s connection with the body), as in ordinary life”. That is, just as a pond, dug at first for the purpose of irrigation of fields, continues to exist and be used by people for other purposes, such as, supplying drinking water and the like, even when its original purpose has been served, i.e. just as the effect, viz. the pond, continues to exist when its cause, viz. the purpose of irrigation, is no more, so the subtle body, the effect, continues to exist for serving a purpose, viz. the attainment of Brahman, other than its original purpose, viz. the undergoing of karmas, even when the karmas, its causes, are no more.^[4]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

He interprets the sūtra thus: “(The teaching about the going of the soul is) appropriate, on account of finding a purpose characterized by that (viz. a purpose for the going), as in ordinary life”. That is, in Scripture (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 1.5-1.6) we find that the soul enters into conversation with the Kāryya-[Kārya-]Brahman and this is not possible unless it travels through the path of light and so on. This also shows that it is accompanied by the subtle body, since in ordinary experience we find that only those who are endowed with sense-organs can enter into conversations. This subtle body disappears only when the soul attains the Supreme Brahman through the Kāryya-Brahman.^[5]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

For Śrīkaṇṭha interpretation, see under the previous sūtra. This is sūtra 29 in his commentary.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. He takes it as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with indicating which of the two paths of meditation—viz. meditation on God, the sweet and meditation on God, the majestic—is the higher. Hence the sūtra: “(The devotee who meditates on God, the sweet) has attained superiority (‘upapanna’) on account of obtaining an object having that characteristic (viz. the Lord who is devoted to such a devotee), as in ordinary life”. That is, just as a person through his love and loyalty for the king brings him under his control, i.e. pleases him, so the devotee who meditates on the Lord as the sweet brings the Lord under his control, i.e. wins over his favour.^[6]

Thus, according to Nimbārka, Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Bhāskara, there is a complete decay of the karmas of a knower at the time of his departure from the body, while according to Śrīkaṇṭha, there is the decay of some works then, the rest coming to decay when the soul has crossed over the river Virajā. Baladeva does not raise the problem at all.

Again, while Nimbārka, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha hold that the going through the path of gods is obligatory for all knowers, Śaṅkara holds that it is obligatory only for those who meditate on the qualified Brahman, but never for those who know the non-qualified Brahman.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[2]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja.

[3]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṃkara’s commentary) 3.3.30, p. 804.

[4]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 3.3.30, p. 299, Part 2.

[5]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.3.30.

[6]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.31, pp. 161-162, Chap. 3. “Loke yathā sarvādhikasyāpi rājñaḥ sva-janānuvṛtti-rasikasya kaścij janas tad eka-hitanipuṇas taṃ svādhīnam kurvan praśasyate tad-vat.”