Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.33

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.33 by Roma Bose:

“But there is the comprehension (in all Brahma-vidyās) of the conceptions of the imperishable, on account of generality and on account of being that, as in the case of what belongs to the Upasad, that has been said.”

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

There should be the inclusion, under all meditations on Brahman, of the conceptions of non-grossness and the rest, connected with the Imperishable, stated in the text: “That, verily, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.8^[1]). Why? Because everywhere the Imperishable, viz. Brahman, the chief, is the same; and because those attributes of non-grossness and the rest form essential parts of an investigation into His real nature; just as in the Jāmadagnya-ahīna^[2] sacrifice, in which the Upasad^[3] offerings are to consist of puraḍāṣ^[4], the sacred formula read in the Sāma-veda, viz.: “May the fire promote the sacrifice” (Tāṇḍya-mahā-brāhmaṇa 21.10.11^[5]) and so on, is recited in the low accent of the Yajur-veda.. “That has been said,” viz.: “If there be opposition between the subsidiary and the primary, there is connection of the Veda with the primary, because of the subserviency of that, (i.e. of the subsidiary to the primary)”. (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.3.9.^[6])

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

By the statement (made above) that the knowers abide (in this world) until the completion of their offices, it is indicated that the departure of such men also from the universe, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, is under the control of the Highest Person alone, different from the universe. Now (the author) points out that the attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest of that very Highest Person,—the cause of the origin and the rest of the world, the controller of the sentient and the non-sentient, different in nature from the whole group of non-sentient objects which are seen to be possessed of grossness and from the group of sentient beings which are declared by Scripture to be atomic, and an ocean of natural, eternal and infinite mass of attributes,—are to be meditated on by the knower in all the meditations on Him,

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, the answer given to Gārgī by Yājñavalkya is recorded thus: ‘“That, verily, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-atomic, non-short, non-long, not red, not fluid, without shadow, without darkness, without air, without space, unassociated, tasteless, odourless, without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind, without light, without breadth, without happiness^[7], without measure, without inside and without outside. It consumes nothing whatsoever....^[8] Verily, O Gārgī, at the command of this Imperishable the sun and the moon stand held apart”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.8-9^[9]). In the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda too beginning: “Now, the higher is that whereby the Imperishable is apprehended” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.5), it is said: “That which is invisible, intangible, without family, without caste, without eye, without ear, without hands and feet” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.6^[10]).

Here the doubt is, whether the attributes, viz. non-grossness, non-atomicity, invisibility, intangibility and the rest, which belong to Brahman, denoted by the word ‘Imperishable which are mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda, and which establish the difference of Brahman from the sentient and the non-sentient,—are to be inserted in all the meditations on Brahman or not. On the suggestion, viz. that they are not to be inserted, there being no purpose for that,—

(We reply:) There is a purpose. In those meditations on Brahman too, it is Brahman, different from the sentient and the non-sentient, that is the object to be attained by the attainers,—so says (the author): “But there is the comprehension of the conceptions of the Imperishable”. “The Imperishable” is Brahman. There should be the “comprehension”, i.e. inclusion, of the “conceptions” of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest also, connected with Him, in all the meditations on Brahman, in order that we may understand His real nature as different from the sentient and the noil-sentient. That His essential attributes, like bliss and the rest, are to be so included has been stated under the aphorism: “Bliss and the rest belonging to the chief” (Brahma-sūtra 3.3.11). Similarly, in order that the illusory notion that His bliss is similar to other kinds of blisses may be set at naught,^[11] it is proper that the attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest should be included everywhere. Why? “On account of generality and on account of being that”; that is, because in all meditations on Brahman, the real nature of the object to be meditated on, which is different from the sentient and the non-sentient and is the object to be attained, remains the same; also because those attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest form essential parts of an investigation into the nature of the Chief, as they follow Him.

An instance illustrating that the attributes (or the secondary matters) follow the chief (or the primary matter) is given in the phrase: “As in the case of what belongs to the Upasad”. That is, just as in the Jāmadagnya-ahīna sacrifice, in which the upasad offerings are to consist of puraḍāś, enjoined in the text: “Jamadagni, desiring prosperity, sacrificed with the four-nightly rite.....^[12] The sacrificial cakes become the upasad offerings” (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 7.1.9^[13]), the sacred formulas read in the Sāma-veda, like “May the fire promote the sacrifice” (Tāṇḍya-mahā-brāhmaṇa 7.1.9) and so on, are recited by the Adhvaryyu [Adhvaryu] in the low accent of the Yajur-veda, as they follow the principal matter. “That has been said”, i.e. said by Jaimini, viz. “If there be opposition between the subsidiary and the primary, because of the subserviency of that (viz. of the subsidiary to the primary)”. (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.3.9.)

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

Interpretation of “sāmanya-tad-bhāvābhyām” different, viz. “On account of the equality (i.e. because all texts equally establish Brahman as such, i.e. as different from the Universe) and on account of that object (viz. Brahman, being the object of all texts)”.^[14]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṃkara, Quoted by Rāmānuja, Quoted by Bhāskara, Quoted by Śrīkaṇṭha and Quoted by Baladeva

[2]:

A sacrifice lasting four days, called ‘Jāmadagnya’ because offered by Jāmadagni. Vide Taittirīya-saṃhitā 7.1.9. See Vedānta-kaustubha 3.3.33.

[3]:

Name of a ceremony lasting several days and forming part of the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice.

[4]:

A puraḍāṣ is a sacrificial cake of ground rice, usually divided into pieces and offered in, one or more cups (or kapāha).

[5]:

P. 625, vol. 2. Quoted by Śaṃkara, Quoted by Rāmānuja, Quoted by Bhāskara, Quoted by Śrīkaṇṭha and Quoted by Baladeva

[6]:

P. 280. Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha

The sense is that when the primary and the subsidiary belong to two different Vedas, the Vedic characteristic of the subsidiary is to be determined by the primary, because the subsidiary is subservient to the primary, i.e. because the performer takes up the performance of the subsidiary solely for the purpose of making the primary complete in all details. Vide Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra (Śabara’s commentary) on Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.3.9, pp. 280-281. Hence here the Sāma-veda mantras, instead of being recited in the loud accent of the Sāma-veda, are to be recited in the low accent of the Yajur-veda, since they form subordinate parts of a Yajur-vedic sacrifice, viz. Jāmadagnya-ahīna.

[7]:

Correct quotation: “amukham” (=without mouth) and not “asukham”. Vide Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.3.8, p. 169.

[8]:

Omitted portion: “None whatsoever consumes it”.

[9]:

Vide the dialogue between Gārgī and Yājñavalkya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8. Gārgī put two questions to Yājñavalkya: First: “That which is above the sky, that which is beneath the earth, that which is between these two, sky and earth, that which people call the past, the present and the future,—across what is that woven, warp and woof?” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.4). Answer: “That, O Gārgī, the Brāhmaṇas call the Imperishable”, etc.

[10]:

Vide Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1. Brahmā taught this knowledge of Brahman to his eldest son Atharva, who taught it to Aṅgir, who taught it to Bhāradvaja Satyavāha, who taught it to Aṅgiras. Then, Śaunaka, a great householder approached Aṅgiras with the question: “Sir! Through knowing which everything else becomes known?” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.3). Thereupon Aṅgiras proceeded to teach him two kinds of knowledge, higher (or parā) and lower (or aparā). The lower so is the knowledge of the four Vedas with their subsidiary parts, the higher is the knowledge whereby the Imperishable is apprehended.

[11]:

That is, to know a thing is to know its peculiar attributes which distinguish it from other objects. Now, bliss and the rest do not constitute the exclusive attributes of Brahman, since they are the attributes of the individual souls as well. Hence in order that the bliss and so on of Brahman may not be confused with the bliss and the rest of the individual soul, it is necessary to include in all meditations on Brahman the further attributes of non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest, which, belong to Brahman exclusively, over and above the attributes of bliss and so on.

[12]:

Omitted portion: “He prospered therein and the two descendants of Jamadagni are not found to be grey-haired. He who knowing thus offers the four-nightly rite comes to have that prosperity”.

[13]:

P. 251, line 17, vol. 2.

[14]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.3.33, p. 811; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.3.33, p. 188.