Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 3.3.37, 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 3.3.37

< Previous

Next >

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.37 by Roma Bose:

“For he alone (is the object of meditations in all the versions), the true and the rest (are inserted in all the versions).”

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

“He alone” who is denoted by the term ‘true’, and is mentioned in the texts: “That divinity thought” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.3.2^[1]), “Light (merges) in the highest divinity” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.6^[2]), is repeated in the versions, such as: ‘“Just as, my dear, the bees prepare the honey”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.9.1^[3]) and so on. The very same (attributes of being) “the true and the rest”, mentioned in the first version thus: ‘“Everything has that for its self, that is true”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.7^[4]), are inserted in all other versions.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. In the Sad-vidyā too, there being a repetition of question and answer, how is it ascertained that the object to be meditated on is the same?—(the author) says:

“For he alone,” i.e. the Highest Divinity alone, denoted by the term ‘existent’ and referred to in the passages: “That divinity thought” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.3.2), “Light (merges) in the Highest Divinity” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.6), is repeated in the versions: ‘“Just as, my dear, the bees prepare the honey’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.9.1) and so on. The very same (attributes of being) “the true” and so on, mentioned in the first version: ‘“All this has that for its soul, that is true”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.7), are inserted in all the other versions. Hence in the Sad-vidyā, the object to be worshipped is the same indeed. Thus it is established that in both the cases the questions and the answers are concerned with the same vidyā.

Here ends the section entitled “Being within” (16).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 38 in Śaṅkara’s commentary. They take this sūtra too as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the question whether the two Sad-vidyās (in Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.4 and Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.5) constitute the same vidyā or two different vidyās. The answer is that they are the same vidyā. They read “sā” (meaning vidyā) instead of “sa” (meaning the Lord). Hence the sūtra: “For that (viz. the same Sad-vidyā) alone (is recorded by the two texts), (hence the attributes of) truth and so on (are to be comprehended in one act of meditation)”.^[5]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself. Interpretation same.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 39 in his commentary. He takes this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with proving that the attributes of the Lord are not unreal. Like Śaṅkara and Bhāskara, he reads “sā” (meaning the parā-śakti of the Lord). Hence the sūtra: “She (viz. the parā-śakti of the Lord) alone is truth and the rest”. That is, the attributes of the Lord like truth, omniscience and so on, are the modifications of the parā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti of the Lord. Hence they are real, constituting the essential nature of the Lord, and not illusory.^[6]