Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.41

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.41 by Roma Bose:

“(There is) non-restriction with regard to the specifying of that, on account of that being seen, for the fruit (viz.) non-obstruction is ‘different’.”

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

There is “non-restriction” (i.e. no fixed rule) that the meditations that are founded on the subordinate parts of sacrificial acts and are mentioned in texts like: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.1^[1]) and so on (are to be included) in those acts. Why? Because in the scriptural text: “Both perform with it, he who knows this thus and he who does not know thus” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10^[2]), such a non-restriction is found. As we learn from Scripture that even a non-worshipper is a performer of sacrificial works through the pranava, a subsidiary part of sacrificial works, so it is ascertained that there is no restriction with regard to the act of meditation. And hence that the fruit of meditation is “different” from the fruit of work is known from the passage: “What only one does with knowledge, with faith, with the mystic doctrine,—that only becomes more potent” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10^[3]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been shown at the end of the previous section that there is a great difference between meditation and work, since the former is the cause of a knower’s (attaining) freedom of movement and a supreme place. Now (the author) is showing the superiority of meditation to work, on the ground of the superiority of the fruit of the meditations, founded on the subsidiary parts of work, over that of mere works (like sacrifices, etc.) though performed together with all their subsidiary parts.

Now, there are certain meditations which are founded on the udgītha and the rest, the subsidiary parts of sacrificial works, such as: “Let one meditate on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.1) and so on. Here the doubt is as to whether they are to be inserted regularly in the sacrificial acts, like the quality of being made of parṇa-wood^[4]; or not regularly, like the milking-vessel. With regard to this, the prima facie view is as follows: As the designation about the meditation on the udgītha, viz.: “Whatever one does with knowledge, with faith, with the mystic doctrine, that becomes more potent” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10), does not mention any separate result,—just as the hearing of non-sinful verses connected with the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood, mentioned in the passage: “He whose sacrificial ladle is made of the praṇa-[parṇa-?]wood does not hear sinful verses” (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 3.5.7^[5]) (is not a separate or special fruit),—so the meditations on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts are to be inserted regularly (in those acts) as their subsidiary parts, just as the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood (is always connected with sacrificial acts) through the sacrificial ladle.^[6]

With regard to it, we reply: “Non-restriction with regard to the specifying of that”, and so on. The word “specifying” (“nirdhāraṇa) means complete retention by the mind^[7], i.e. meditation. There is “non-restriction” with regard to the meditation “of that”, i.e. of the meditations founded on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, such as the udgītha-meditation and the like. That is, the meditations on the udgītha and the rest are not to be inserted regularly in sacrifices as their subsidiary parts. Why? “On account of that being seen,” i.e. because such a non-restriction is found in Scripture. Thus, in the scriptural text: “Both perform with this, he who knows^[8] this thus and he who does not know thus” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10), even a non-knower being stated to be an agent, it is ascertained that there is no fixed rule that the meditations founded on the udgītha and the rest are to be inserted regularly in sacrificial acts as their subordinate parts. Further, as the fruit of the injunction of meditation is different from that of sacrificial acts, there is no fixed rule with regard to the meditations on that,—so says (the author): “For different”, i.e. because “the fruit” of the injunction of meditation, consisting in “non-obstruction”, is declared by Scripture to be “different” from the fruit of sacrificial works. The sense is that the fruit of one work is obstructed by the fruit of another stronger work; the fruit of the injunction of meditation is the opposite of that. In accordance with the text: “Both perform with it, he who knows this thus and he who does not know thus. Diverse, however, are knowledge and non-knowledge. What only one does with knowledge, with faith, with the mystic doctrine, that only becomes more potent” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10), ‘with it’, i.e. with the Om-kara, forsooth, both perform sacrificial acts. Though ‘he who knows’ ‘this’, i.e. the syllable, Om, ‘thus’, i.e. as possessed of the attributes of being the finest essence and so on, and ‘he who does not know’, are both equal in point of being agents, yet there is a difference in the result on account of knowledge and non-knowledge,—this is what the text designates. Here ‘knowledge’ is ‘diverse’, i.e. different from ‘non-knowledge’. That work which one does ‘with knowledge’, ‘with faith’, ‘with the mystic doctrine’, i.e. with the meditation on the Mystic Deity, ‘becomes more potent’,—this is the sense. Hence, it is established that just as the text: “For one desiring cattle he should fetch water in a milking-vessel” establishes a (special) fruit of the (use of) the milking-vessel, having the fetching of water as its abode^[9],—here as the text can very well be so interpreted, the milking-vessel is not a subordinate part of sacrificial acts,—so the meditations, founded on the subsidiary elements of sacrificial acts are to be included in those acts optionally.

Here ends the section entitled “Non-restriction with regard to the specifying of that” (18).

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 43 in his commentary. He too takes it to be an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned, however, with an entirely different topic. The question is as to whether the Lord is to be meditated on as Kṛṣṇa alone. The answer is: “(There is) no restriction with regard to the specifying of that (viz. the Lord), (i.e. there is no fixed rule that the Lord is to be worshipped as Kṛṣṇa alone), on account of that being found (in Scripture), for there is a separate fruit, (viz.) nonobstruction (of the worship of Kṛṣṇa)”. That is, the worship of Kṛṣṇa is the unobstructed or direct means to salvation, while the worship of other deities is the indirect means.^[10]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Bhāskara.

[2]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[3]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha; Vide Brahma-sūtra 4.1.18..

[4]:

A beautiful sacred tree of the wood of which particular sacrificial vessels are made.

[5]:

P. 311, lines 23-24, vol. 1.

[6]:

The problem here is as to whether the meditations, enjoined in the Upaniṣads, on certain subsidiary parts of sacrifices, such as, on the udgītha and so on, are necessarily connected with these sacrifices, i.e. are to be undertaken whenever those sacrifices are undertaken; or whether they may be undertaken optionally in -accordance with the will of the sacrificer. In the former case, such meditations would stand to the sacrifices in the same relation as the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood (parṇamayītva) does. The quality of being made of the parṇa-wood is permanently connected with sacrifices through the sacrificial ladle made of the parṇa-wood. Similarly, these meditations on the udgītha and the rest would, on this view, be permanently connected with the sacrifices through the udgītha and the rest. That is, in accordance with the dictum laid down in Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.6.1-2 (vide Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra (Śabara’s commentary) on the same, pp. 366-368), a sacrificial ladle made of the parṇa-wood is an essential ingredient of a sacrifice and is to be included in it whenever it is performed. Similarly, on the first view, the meditations on the udgītha and so on are to be performed whenever the main sacrifices are performed.

In the latter case, however, such meditations would stand to the sacrifices in the same relation as the milking-vessel does. That is, in accordance with the dictum laid down in Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 4.1.2 (vide Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra (Śabara’s commentary) on the same, p. 436), the milking-vessel (go-dohana) is used in certain sacrifices, viz. in the Daśapūrṇa-māsa, not universally, but only occasionally, i.e. only if the sacrificer desires for a special end, viz. cattle. Similarly, on the second view, the meditations on the udgītha and the rest are not obligatory to the main sacrifices, but only optional.

The prima facie view is that the meditations on the udgītha and the rest serve no special purpose, as the using of the milking-vessel, e.g. does. They simply secure the greater potency of the sacrifices which is the general fruit of all other connected acts, just as having one’s sacrificial ladle made of the parṇa-wood secures no special result. Hence it cannot be said those meditations on the udgītha and the like are to be undertaken at will for the sake of securing a special result. Therefore, they are to be undertaken always with the sacrifices.

[7]:

Niravaśeṣatayā dhāraṇam-nirdhāraṇam.

[8]:

Here the word “veda” (=knows) may be translated in conformity with the context, as “meditates”, the text meaning that one may perform a sacrifice either with meditating on the Om, or not meditating on it.

[9]:

That is, the quality of being made of the parṇa-wood cannot have a special result of its own, since it is only a quality and not an act and must, as such, abide in a substratum to be connected with any result. But the milking-vessel may have a special fruit, since it has an act, viz. the fetching of water, as its abode. Vide Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.3.42, p. 826.

[10]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.43, pp, 189-190, Chap. 3.