Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.55

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.55 by Roma Bose:

“(There is) superiority of the plentitude, as in the case of a sacrifice, for thus (scripture) shows.”

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

With regard to the Vaiśvānara-vidyā^[1], the meditation on the aggregate is commended, just as there is a single performance of the Paurṇa-māsa sacrifice and the rest together with the subsidiary parts. Thus, the scriptural text: ‘“Your bead would have fallen off if you had not come to me”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.12.2^[2]), designating the fault involved in the meditation on each limb, shows the excellence of the meditation on the aggregate.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been pointed out above that in accordance with scriptural statements, meditations mentioned in one place are applicable to other places. Why should we not, then, meditate on the parts in the Vaiśvānara-vidyā, in accordance with scriptural statement?—To this objection (the author) replies:

In the Vaiśvānara-vidyā, from the questions and answers of the six sages, viz. Prācīnaśāla and the rest and king Kekaya, we learn of a meditation on the Vaiśvānara (or the Universal Soul) in its separate aspect, viz. the heavenly world, the sun, the wind, the ether, the earth,—as well as in its aggregative aspect. Here the doubt is, viz. whether one should meditate on the separate parts or on the aggregate. On the suggestion that in accordance with the scriptural texts laying down an injunction regarding the meditation on the separate parts, one should meditate on the separate parts,—

We reply: There is “superiority”, i.e. excellence, “of the plentitude,” i.e. of the meditation on the aggregate alone, and not of the meditations on the separate parts,—since the object to be meditated on being Vaiśvānara alone, having (different) limbs like the heaven as its head and so on, the beginning and the end form a connected whole. “As in the case of a sacrifice.” That is, just as the single performance of sacrifices like Paurṇa-māsa and the rest in their entirety is intended to be designated, but not of the separate parts like the preliminary offerings and the rest, so is the case here also. “For,” the scriptural text, designating the fault involved in the meditation on the separate parts, viz.: ‘“Your head would have fallen off had you not come to me”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.12.2), ‘“You would have become blind had you not come to me”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.13.2) and so on, “shows” “thus”, i.e. that the meditation on the aggregate alone is to be undertaken and not meditation on the separate parts.

It is not to be said also that (on the above view) the texts enjoining meditating on the separate parts will become meaningless, viz. those beginning with the question of the king: “‘Auhamanyava, whom do you worship as the soul?’ ‘The heaven alone, O reverend king.’ He said: ‘The brightly shining one whom you worship as the soul is verily the universal soul”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.12.1^[3]) and so on,—since as it is the meditation on the aggregate which is to be enjoined through the explanatory reiterations of the meditations on the separate parts, those texts are concerned with explanatory reiterations only. Moreover, having rejected the meditation on the separate parts, Scripture mentions the result of the meditation on the aggregate only thus: “He eats food in all the worlds, in all beings, in all selves” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.18.1). Hence, it is established that the meditation on the aggregate alone is to be undertaken.

Here ends the section entitled “The superiority of the plentitude” (23).

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 59 in his commentary. He takes it as forming an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with an altogether different topic, viz. the meditation on the Lord as possessed of the attribute of plurality or manifoldness. Hence the sūtra: “On account of the pre-eminence of (the attribute of) muchness, (the Lord is to be meditated on as possessed of this attribute), as in the case of a sacrifice, for thus (Scripture, i.e. Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.2,3, 1) shows”. That is, just as a sacrifice is a sacrifice even when the sacrificer first begins it, and remains a sacrifice even when he has finished it, and just as this conception of the sacrifice is the most essential element involved in all sacrifices, so the manifoldness of the Lord, i.e. His appearing in many forms, is the most essential of all His attributes, and therefore must be included in ail meditations on Him.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

See under Brahma-sūtra 3.3.31.

[2]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[3]:

Quotation given in the text is all wrong.

[4]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.59, pp. 224-225, Chap. 3.