Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.53

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.53 by Roma Bose:

“But (the meditations) connected with the subsidiary parts, (are) not (restricted) to (particular) branches, for (they belong) to each Veda.”

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

The meditations connected with the subsidiary parts of (sacrifices) like the udgītha, enjoined in the passage: “Let one meditate on this syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.1^[1]) and so on, do not rest upon (their own) branches^[2], but are connected with “each Veda”, i.e. with all the branches^[3], on account of the non-specification of the scriptural text about the udgītha.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been pointed out above that at the time of meditation, the particular form (which the individual soul has) at that time should be disregarded, and (its) special form, as characterized by the manifested (attributes) of freedom from sins and so on, is to be conceived of. Similarly, here too, since a particular form can accomplish the end, the meditations may rest upon the particular forms of the udgītha and the rest, i.e. be based on them, in whatever special forms these udgītha and the rest are mentioned in whatever particular branches with whatever special accents,—this doubt (the author) dispels now by stating his own view.

The doubt is as to whether the meditations, founded on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts like the udgītha and the rest, such as: “Let one meditate on this syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.1), “Let one meditate on the five-fold sāman in the worlds’, (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 2.1.1), “‘Hymn, hymn’, people say. The hymn is, forsooth, the earth” (Aitareya-āraṇyaka 2.1.2^[4]), “This world, verily, is the piled up fire” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 10.5.4, 1^[5]) and so on, enjoined in all the branches of all the Vedas, are based on those particular forms of the udgītha and the rest in which they are read in those particular branches in those special accents, or are connected with the udgītha and the rest contained in all the branches. Here the prima facie view is that on account of proximity, they are based on those particular forms of the udgītha and the rest in which these udgītha and the rest are read in those particular branches in those special accents, but are not connected with the udgītha and the rest presented in a different branch.

With regard to this, (the author) states the correct conclusion: “Connected with the subsidiary parts”. The word “but” is meant for rejecting the prima facie view. Those meditations, “connected with the subsidiary parts”, i.e. founded on the subordinate members of sacrifices, do not rest on the udgītha and the rest belonging to their own branches, but are connected with “each Veda”, i.e. with the udgīthas and the rest represented in all the branches. The word “for” implies the reason, i.e. because in spite of the difference of the forms of the udgītha and the rest resulting from the difference of accents and so on, the scriptural text about the udgītha, viz. “Let one meditate on the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.1) and so on, lays down no specification, and thereby proximity is set aside.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 57 in his commentary. Here he illustrates the doctrine that the Lord is realized differently by different devotees in accordance with the kind of devotion with which they worship Him. Hence the sūtra: “But (the priests) are restricted to (particular) parts (of the sacrifice), (but are not appointed) to (all the) branches (of it), because (the parts are regulated) according to each Veda”. That is, when a man is about to perform a sacrifice, he chooses several priests, all of whom are able to perform all the parts of it, and appoints them to certain offices. And, the priests, so appointed by their master, must perform only the portions allotted to them, and not the others, and receive the fee accordingly. Similarly, it is the will of the Lord which determines which particular path of devotion a soul should follow, i.e. whether they should meditate on Him as the Sweet, or as the Majestic,—and realize Him accordingly.^[6]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Bhāskara.

[2]:

[Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series] ed. reads “Sva-śakhāsu”, p. 68.

[3]:

[Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series] ed. reads “Kutaḥ”. Op cit.

[4]:

P. 101.

[5]:

P. 798, line 17.

[6]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.57, pp. 221-222, Chap. 3.