Brahma-Sūtra 3.4.12 (correct conclusion, continued)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.4.12 by Roma Bose:

“On the part of one who has only read the Veda.”

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

In the text: “Having studied the Veda in the house of a preceptor” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.15.1^[1]), work is enjoined “on the part of one who has only read the Veda”.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha):

To the objection, viz. “On account of the enjoinment on the part of one having that” (Brahma-sūtra 3.4.6), we reply:

In the text: “Having studied the Veda in the house of a preceptor” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.15.1), work is enjoined “on the part of one who has only read” the Veda, but not on the part of one who possesses knowledge, so knowledge cannot be taken to be a subsidiary part of work. Though one who has not studied the Pūrva-tantra^[2] may, in accordance with the injunction about the Vedic study, viz. “Let one study the Veda”, labour with great care to master the Veda, and though he may attain a little knowledge, yet since he lacks the knowledge of the real nature of religious duties and the method of performing them, demonstrated in the Pūrva-tantra, he, as dependent on that tantra, comes to have a reading knowledge only of the Veda, but does not know the meaning thereof. The meaning of the Veda, on the other hand, according to the author of the Pūrva-tantra, is attainable through an investigation into that tantra. But, in our view, even one who after studying the Veda, has come to know the mystery of religious duties and even one who knows everything in a general way, is said to have only read the Veda, since he has not investigated into the Vedānta, designating Brahman, the primary meaning of all the Vedas. Work is enjoined in that text on the part of such a one, but not on the part of a knower,—such is the view of the reverend author of the aphorisms.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[2]:

I.e. the Pūrva-mimāṃsa[-mīmāṃsā?].