Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.48 (correct conclusion, continued)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.48 by Roma Bose:

“On account of inseparable adjuncts and the rest, like the separateness of other cognitions, and (because it) is seen, that has been said.”

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

“On account of the inseparable adjuncts” like hymns, recitations and so on^[1], mentioned in the text: “By mind the cups were taken in them” (Śat. Br, 10.5.3, 3^[2]), and on account of direct scriptural statement and the rest,^[3] the sacrifice consisting in meditation is indeed different, “like the separateness of other vidyās”, such as, the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and so on. This being so, an injunction is to be supposed. “And” it is “found” that in the case of what is similar to a mere statement, e.g. in the passage: “What alone one does with knowledge” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10^[4]), an injunction is supposed. It has been “stated” as well: “But the texts, on account of being new” (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 10.4.22^[5]) and so on.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection stated above, viz. that because of the nonmention of an injunctive word in the text: “By mind alone they were placed” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 3), and because we do not perceive their connection with a fruit,—to say that they are subordinate members of a sacrifice consisting in meditation does not stand to reason,—(the author) replies:

The sacrifice consisting in meditation is indeed different from the sacrifice consisting in action, and (hence) the fact that they (i.e. fires) are the subordinate members of the former does stand to reason. Why? “On account of the inseparable adjuncts and the rest,” i.e. on account of the inseparable adjuncts, transference, Scripture and so on. Among these, the inseparable adjuncts, (i.e. the attendant performances) are stated in the text: “By mind the cups were taken in them” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 3). As a sacrifice consisting in action and its subordinate members are directly perceivable, these would be meaningless if there be not a separate sacrifice consisting in meditation. The inseparable adjuncts of a sacrifice are the cups, hymns, recitation and so on. The transference, viz. “Of these, each is as great as the former” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 11) has been mentioned above. Such a transference does not fit in if there be no difference (between these two)^[6]. The scriptural text and the rest have been indicated above.^[7]

With regard to this, a parallel instance is cited thus: “Like the separateness of other cognitions”. Just as other cognitions like the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā and the rest are different from a sacrifice consisting in action, as well as from other vidyās, owing to their respective peculiar adjuncts, so is the case here too. This being so, an injunction is to be supposed. “And” it is “found” that in the case of what is similar to a mere statement, e.g. in the text: “What alone one does with knowledge” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10) and so on, an injunction is supposed. “That has been said,” thus: “But the texts, on account of being new” (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 10.4.22). Their connection with a fruit too may be known from the transference: “Of these, each one is as great as the former” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.3, 11).

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He breaks this sūtra into two different sūtras:—“Anubandhā-dibhya” and “Prajñāntara.... taduktam,” and interprets them absolutely differently. Thus:

Sūtra 51.—He takes it to be forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with the worship of holy men. Hence the sūtra: “On account of injunction and so on”. That is, Scripture expressly enjoins the worship of great and good men, and hence such an worship must be undertaken as an auxiliary and indirect means to salvation.^[8]

Sūtra 52.—He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with showing that the devotees realize and intuit the Lord differently. He reads “dṛṣṭiś ca” in place of “dṛṣṭaś ea”. Hence the sūtra: “And like the difference between prajñā and the other (sort of knowledge) the perception (of the Lord too differs in the case of different devotees), that has been said”. That is, in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.21^[9]), two sorts of knowledge, viz. vijñāna and prajñā, are spoken of. The first is intellectual knowledge or mere conception, the latter is intuitional knowledge or direct realization. Now, just as there is a difference between intellect and intuition, so there is a difference among the intuitions themselves. That is, different devotees, following different paths, come to have different intuitions or visions of the Lord. This has been declared in the Chāndogya (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1^[10]).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

This last portion “like... so on” is omitted in the [Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series] ed.

[2]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[3]:

See Vedānta-pārijata-saurabha 3.3.47.

[4]:

Quoted by Śrīkaṇṭha.

[5]:

P. 453, vol. 2. Quoted by Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha

[6]:

Vide under Vedānta-kaustubha 3.3.22.

[7]:

Vide V.k. 3.3.47.

[8]:

G.B, 3.3.51, pp. 206-208, Chap. 3.

[9]:

Vijñāya prajñām kurvīta.

[10]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.52, p. 209, Chap. 3. “Yathā kratu asmin loke puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati.”