Brahma-Sūtra 3.4.2 (prima facie view, 2-7)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.4.2 by Roma Bose:

“On account of being complementary, (the statements about the fruits) are glorification of the man, just as in other cases, so Jaimini (thinks).”

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

As knowledge effects the purification of the agent who is a subsidiary part of action, it is but a subsidiary part of action, on account of the agent “being complementary” to action. The scriptural statement about the fruit is “glorification”, just like the scriptural statement about the fruit, viz. the hearing of non-sinful verses, with reference to the objects made of the parṇa-wood.^[1]

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Having thus begun with the correct conclusion of the Upaniṣads, now (the author) is stating the prima facie view.

Knowledge is a subsidiary part of action. Why? “On account of being complementary,” i.e. because the self, which to be known, stands in a complementary relation to action, in consequence of being the agent, i.e. because any effort towards acts having heaven and the rest as their ends is possible if there be the knowledge of the self as different from the body and the rest on the part of the agent. Hence as knowledge effects the purification of the agent, it too is a subsidiary element of action^[2]. The scriptural statements about the fruit, on the other hand, such as: “The knower of the self crosses over grief” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.1.3), “The knower of Brahman attains the highest” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1) and so on, may be taken as a “glorification of the man”, i.e. mere glorification, “just as in other cases”, i.e. just as in the case of objects, purification and acts, the scriptural statements about the fruit are mere glorifications.

Thus, with regard to objects, there is the passage: “He whose sacrificial ladle is made of the parṇa-wood does not hear sinful verse” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad Saṃ, 3.5.7^[3]); with regard to purification, the passage: “He who anoints his eyes wards off the eye of his enemy”; and with regard to acts, the passage: “He who performs the prayāja and the anuyāja sacrifices makes, forsooth, an armour for this sacrifice” and so on. It has been said: “The statement about the end attained with regard to substance, quality and purification must be glorification, because they subserve the purpose of another” (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 4.3.1^[4])). So is the case here too,—“so” the teacher “Jaimini” thinks.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The object, viz. the ladle, made of the parṇa-wood, is a subsidiary part of the sacrifice and hence the fruit ascribed to it, viz. the hearing of non-sinful verses, subserves the purpose of the sacrifice, i.e. glorifies it. Similarly, the agent, i.e. the sacrifices is a subsidiary part of sacrifice, and hence the fruit ascribed to the knowledge of the self of the sacrificer subserves the sacrifice, i.e. glorifies it, but such a knowledge has no independent fruit of its own.

[2]:

That is, the agent, the sacrificer, cannot undertake the performance of sacrifices, leading to heaven and so on, unless he first knows that his soul is different from and survives the body, for evidently the body does not go to heaven, but the soul only. This knowledge of the real nature of the seif as distinct from the body, therefore, qualifies the agent for undertaking the performance of sacrifices and as such is a complementary factor of sacrifices.

[3]:

P. 311, lines 23-24, vol. 1.

[4]:

P. 487, vol. 1.