Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.61 (prima facie view, continued)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.61 by Roma Bose:

“And on account of combination.”

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

And on account of the performance together of the praṇava and the udgītha, in accordance with the text: “From the seat of the Hotṛ^[1] simply, he sets right the wrong utterances of the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.5.5^[2]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

“And on account of the combination,” i.e. performance together, of the praṇava, mentioned in the Ṛg-veda, and udgītha, mentioned in the Sāma-veda, in accordance with the text: “From the seat of the Hotṛ simply, he sets right the wrong utterances of the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.5.5), it is known that there is a regular inclusion of meditation in sacrificial acts. Owing to the potency of the combination of the praṇava and the udgītha, the priest who chants the udgītha sets right the ‘bad udgītha’, i.e. that udgītha which, though chanted by himself, has been chanted wrongly owing to the lack of his proper knowledge of accents and so on, ‘from the seat of the Hotṛ’, i.e. by means of the work of the Hotṛ, viz. the act of reciting,—this is the meaning of the scriptural text.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 65 in his commentary. It may be objected that a Chāndogya text (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.6.7) mentions only the lotus-like eyes of the Lord, but not His other limbs. Hence this text must be defective. The answer is: “(There is) no (discrepancy in this text) on account of comprehensiveness”. The word “na” (=no) is to be supplied from sūtra 3.3.67. The sense is that the description of the eyes only must be supposed to involve the description of other members of the body of the Lord, and hence the description is not defective.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

One of the four kinds of officiating priests who recites the Ṛgveda.

[2]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[3]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.65, p. 231, Chap. 3.