Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 3.3.34, including the commentary of Nimbarka and sub-commentary of Srinivasa known as Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and Vedanta-kaustubha resepctively. Also included are the comparative views of important philosophies, viz., from Shankara, Ramanuja, Shrikantha, Bhaskara and Baladeva.

Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.34

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.34 by Roma Bose:

“So much (i.e. only these attributes) (are to be included everywhere), on account of reflection.”

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

Since Brahman, the best of all, is meditated on through (i.e. as possessed of) bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on, bliss and the rest are to be included everywhere. Other attributes like having all works and the like, though following the Chief (viz. Brahman) are to be comprised (only) where mentioned.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. In accordance with the stated maxim[1], it follows that there is the inclusion everywhere of those attributes as well, which are stated in the scriptural text: “Having all works, having all odours, having all tastes” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.2, 4), as they too follow the Chief—(the author) says: “So much”, i.e. bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so[2], on are included in all the meditations on Brahman. Why? “On account of reflection”; that is, “the reflection” on Brahman, different from the sentient and the non-sentient, is preceded by the differentiation of Him from others by means of the group of attributes like bliss and the rest, characterized by non-grossness and so on,—on account of such a reflection on Him, he. meditation on Him with thought directed toward Him. (The attributes like) having all works and so on, though following the chief, are suitable in those place alone where they are mentioned, there being no special purpose for their inclusion everywhere. Hence it is established that ‘there is the comprehension of the conceptions of the Imperishable’ (Brahma-sūtra 3.3.33).

Here ends the section entitled “The conception of the Imperishable”.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

Bhāskara reads “īṣat”. They take this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the two passages in the Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.6) and in the Kaṭha-upaniṣad (Kaṭha-upaniṣad 3.1) refer to the same vidyā. The answer is that they are the same “on account of so much (viz. the number two) being recorded”. That is, in both the passages the Lord and the individual soul are designated as the objects to be known. As such, both constitute the same vidyā.[3]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Interpretation same, only the interpretation of the word “āmananāt” different, viz. “On account of scriptural declaration[4].

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Viz. that attributes or, secondary matters follow their substratum or the primary matter.

[2]:

Which differentiate such bliss, etc. from ordinary bliss, etc. of the individual souls.

[3]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.3.34, pp. 814; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.3.34, p. 188.

[4]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.35.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: