Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.46 (correct conclusion, 46-50)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.46 by Roma Bose:

“But (they are) meditation alone, on account of specification and on account of observation (i.e. scriptural text).”

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

The correct conclusion is that they are of the nature of meditation alone. Why? “On account of the specification,” viz.: “For they are piled up by knowledge alone” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3,12^[1]); and also because in that very treatise, viz. in the text: “By the mind they were placed, by the mind they were piled up, by the mind the cups were taken in them, by the mind they praised, by the mind they chanted. Whatever work is done in a sacrifice” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 3^[2]) and so on, a sacrifice consisting of meditation is designated—the whole, of which they (viz., the fires) are subsidiary parts.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

(The author) states the correct conclusion.

The word “but” is meant for disposing of the prima facie view. The word “only” implies emphasis. The fires piled up by the mind and so on cannot be of the form of action, but are “meditation alone,” i.e. are of the nature of meditation alone, or are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. Why? “On account of specification and on account of observation,” i.e. because of the specification, viz.: “For they are piled up by knowledge alone” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 12); and because in the text: “By mind alone they are placed, by mind they are piled up, by mind the cups are taken in them, by mind they praised, by mind they chanted. Whatever work is done in a sacrifice, whatever sacrificial work there is, that, consisting of mind alone, was performed by mind alone, in these, consisting of mind, piled up by mind” (Śat. Rr. 10.5.3, 3), a sacrifice consisting in meditation alone is designated—the whole, of which they are subsidiary parts.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

They break the sūtra into two separate sūtras thus: “Vidyaiva.....nirdhāraṇāt” and “Darśanāe ea”. Interpretation same.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Like Śaṅkara, he too breaks the sūtra into two separate sūtras. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (three sūtras) concerned with showing that vidyā or devotion based on knowledge alone is the means to salvation. Thus: Sūtra 48.—“But vidyā alone (is the means to salvation), on account of specification, (i.e. because Scripture mentions it exclusively, neither karma nor a combination of vidyā and karma).”^[3] Sūtra 49.—“And because (salvation results) from the direct vision (of the Lord).” That is, the direct vision of the Lord is attainable through vidyā alone. Hence vidyā alone is the cause of salvation.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P. 798, lines 14-15. Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[2]:

P. 798, lines 5-6. Quoted by Rāmānuja and Śaṅkara.

[3]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.48, p. 202, Chap. 3.

[4]:

Op. cit., 3.3.49, p. 203.