Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.36

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.36 by Roma Bose:

“(There must be) exchange (of ideas), for (the two texts) specify (the same Brahman), as in another case.”

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

An investigation into the Highest, distinguished from the individual soul as the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures, is to be made by Kahola as by Uṣasta. Similarly, an investigation into Him, distinguished from the individual soul as beyond hunger and so on, is to be made by Uṣasta as by Kahola. Thus, there is a mutual exchange of investigations. This being so, Brahman becomes distinguished from the individual soul. Hence the answers given by Yājñavalkya “specify”, in both cases, the same soul of all as the object to be worshipped, just as in the Sad-vidyā all the answers specify the same Brahman, the Existent.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. Let it be that in both the cases the questions and the answers refer to the Primary Inner Soul of all. Still, the vidyās do not become identical, a difference between them being possible by reason of the fact that in the prior section the Primary Inner Soul, characterized by the attribute of being the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures, is of one form as an object to he known by Uṣasta; while in the subsequent section, the Primary Inner Soul, characterized by the attribute of being beyond hunger and so on, is of another form as an object to be known by Kahola,—(the author) says:

There is “exchange”, i.e. inter-change, of the attributes of being the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures and being beyond hunger and so on. The object to be known by Uṣasta too is the one Supreme Brahman, differentiated from the sentient by the two distinguishing attributes. Similarly, the object to be known by Kahola too is the same Brahman, “for”, with a view to making it known that the Highest Person, the soul of all and the object to be worshipped, is different from the individual soul, endowed with the attributes of occupying a small place and so on,—the answers given by Yājñavalkya “specify”, i.e. demonstrate, Brahman as different from the individual soul by defining His attributes of being the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures and being beyond hunger and so on. “As in another case.” That is, just as in another case, viz. in the case in the Sad-vidyā, by the repeated answers, establishing diverse attributes, the same Brahman is specified as the object to be known, but by reason of this difference of attributes, He Himself does not become different, in those cases, as an object to be worshipped,—so is the case here.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 37 in Śaṅkara’s commentary.

They take this sūtra to be constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the Aitareya and Jābāla texts: “I am he, he is I” (Aitareya-āraṇyaka 2.2.4, 6), “You are I, I am you” mean only that the individual soul is the Lord; or both that the individual soul is the Lord and the Lord is the individual soul. The Prima facie view is that here the transposition is to he understood in one way only, viz. that the individual soul is the Lord,—since the lower can become the higher,—but never that the Lord too is the individual soul, since the Lord can never become the individual soul. The answer is: “(The texts designate) exchange (i.e. mutual transposition of the ideas of the individual soul and the Lord), for (they) specify (this exchange expressly), as in other cases”, That is, in the texts, we must not only understand the individual soul to be the Lord, but vice versa as well, seeing that the texts expressly say not only “I am he”, but also “He is I”. If the transposition were meant to be understood in one way alone, they would have stopped by saying “I am he”. What the above passages aim at enjoining is the meditation on the unity of the soul. Hence just as other texts record the attributes of being the soul of ail and so on for the purpose of meditation, so the above texts record a mutual transposition of the ideas of‘I’ and ‘He’ for the same purpose.^[1]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 38 in his commentary.

Here he concludes the topic of the identity between the Lord, and His city. Hence the sūtra: “For (texts like Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.4.15) specify (that an) interchange (is possible between the Lord and His city), like other (texts, e.g. Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī, etc.)”. That is, the City of Brahman is identical with Brahman Himself, hence an exchange is possible between them, and the former is equally adorable like the latter.^[2]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.3.37, pp. 816-817; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.3.36 (written as 3.3.37), p. 189.

[2]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.38, p. 176, Chap. 3. “Paramātmaiva loko lokaḥ paramātmeti.”