Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.52 (correct conclusion)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.52 by Roma Bose:

“But (the individual soul is to be meditated on in its state of release) different (from its state of bondage, and) not (in its state of bondage), because of becoming of that nature, as in the case of realization.”

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

^[1]At the time of meditation, the individual soul is to be conceived of in its freed state, different from its state of bondage,—since during release, it is to become of that very form, just as one attains the Highest Self in accordance with meditation.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

With regard to it, we reply:

The word “but” implies emphasis. The individual soul is not to be conceived of simply in its state of bondage, i.e. simply in its form of a knower, a doer and so on. On the contrary, it is the real nature of the soul, in its state of release, possessed of the manifested attributes of freedom from sins and so on, and possessed of the attributes of being a knower and so on, which is “different” from its nature in its state of bondage, that is to be conceived of at the time of meditation. Why? “Because of becoming of that nature,” i.e. because during the state of release, the soul becomes “of that nature”, i.e. of the nature of its real form, conceived, in accordance with Scripture, at the time of meditation,^[2] “As in the case of realization”. That is, just as there is the realization of Brahman in accordance with meditation, so is the case here, as declared by the scriptural texts: “As the purpose of man is in this world, so will he be on departing” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3,14.1). “Howsoever he meditates on him, such alone he becomes” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.2, 20^[3]). Hence it is established that during the state of realization, the individual soul is to be conceived of in. its state of release.

Here ends the section entitled “Existence in the body” (21).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 54 in the commentary of Śaṅkara, sūtra 53 in that of Bhāskara, Here they answer the Cārvāka view that the soul is identical with the body. They interpret the sūtra in the same way, only Śaṅkara reads: “tad-bhāvābhāvitvāt”, instead of “tad-bhāvabhāvitvāt”. Thus, according to him, the sūtra means: “(The soul is) different (from the body), not (identical) because the existence (of consciousness) does not depend on the existence of that (viz. the body), as in the case of perception”. That is, consciousness is not a quality of the body, since even where the body is present, there may be no consciousness, e.g. in the case of a dead body. Hence just as perception is other than the object perceived, so consciousness is other than the conscious body.^[4]

According to Bhāskara, the sūtra means; “(The soul is) different (from the body) not (identical) because the existence of (the qualities of the body) depend on the existence of that (viz. the body), as in the case of perception”. That is, consciousness cannot be an attribute of the body, since an attribute of the body exists when the body exists. But consciousness does not exist always when the body does, e.g. in a dead body.^[5] Hence the two explanations are identical in spite of the difference of reading. Bhāskara’s reading is preferable.

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

Interpretation same, only the phrase “upalabdhivat” interpreted differently, viz. just as the realization of Brahman, enjoined in Scripture, means the realization of His real form, so exactly, self-realization too means the realization of the real form of the self.^[6]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 56 in his commentary. He begins a new adhikaraṇa here (three sūtras), concerned with an absolutely different topic, viz. different kinds of realizations in accordance with the different kinds of devotion. Hence the sūtra: “(During release, there is) no (perception of the Lord as possessed of the attributes) other (than those with which He was meditated upon in this life), on account of the existence (of the Lord) as having that nature (i.e. attributes) (during release), as in the case of knowledge”. That is, when a man, conceiving a thing in a particular form, meditates on it as such, he obtains that thing in that particular form. Similarly, the devotees who meditates on the Lord as the Sweet, realizes Him as such during release; and who meditates on Him as the Majestic, realizes Him as such.^[7]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The [Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series] ed. adds “Tan na”—“that is not so”, p. 68.

[2]:

I.e. the form which is meditated on during bondage is the form which is attained later on during salvation.

[3]:

P. 725, line 13. Cf. a very similar passage in Mudg, 3, p. 384, lines 8-9.

[4]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.3.54, p. 840.

[5]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.3.53 (written as 3.3.54), p. 196.

[6]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 3.3.52, p. 337, vol. 2.

[7]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.56, p. 221, Chap. 3.