Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 3.4.18 (correct conclusion, continued), including the commentary of Nimbarka and sub-commentary of Srinivasa known as Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and Vedanta-kaustubha resepctively. Also included are the comparative views of important philosophies, viz., from Shankara, Ramanuja, Shrikantha, Bhaskara and Baladeva.

Brahma-Sūtra 3.4.18 (correct conclusion, continued)

< Previous

Next >

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.4.18 by Roma Bose:

“(There is only) a reference (to those stages of life), Jaimini (thinks so), on account of there being no injunction, for (scripture) condemns (such stages of life).”

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

In the text: “There are three branches of religious duty” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 2.23.1^[1]), there is only a re-mention of those stages of life, in view of the fact that there is no injunctive word there. Also as the text: “He who extinguishes the gods” (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 1.5.2^[2]) contains a condemnation of other stages of life, such stages are not to be adopted,—such is the view of “Jaimini”.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The statement that such stages of life are mentioned in scriptural texts and hence they exist,—is not justifiable, since when the section concerned with the injunction about the worship of the Sāman^[3] has been fully expounded, Scripture, changing the subject, makes “a reference”, i.e. a re-mention simply, in the text: “There are three branches of religious duty” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 2.23.1), of those stages of life which are celebrated in Smṛti, with a view to eulogizing a separate meditation on Brahman as the praṇava, that being the subject of discussion; but does not enjoin them. Why? “On account of the absence of any injunctive text.” And, scriptural texts like; “He who extinguishes the fire is the slayer of the hero among the gods” (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 1.5.2), “After having brought an acceptable gift to the teacher do not cut off the line of progeny” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 1.11), “He who is childless does not possess the world” (Aitareya-upaniṣad Br. 33.1^[4]) and so on, “condemn” other stages of life. Hence the stage of a house-holder is to be adopted and not other stages,—so the teacher “Jaimini” thinks.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

They read “acodanā” in place of “acodanāt”,^[5] and begin a new adhikaraṇa. Interpretation same.

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He too begins a new adhikaraṇa here. Interpretation same.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He too reads “acodanā” and interprets this sūtra differently thus: “(There is a favourable) reference (to works in Scripture), Jaimini (thinks so), (there is) no injunction (with regard to the giving-up of works), because (Scripture) condemns (such a giving up of works)”. That is, here the opponent objects to the view that a knower may or may not act at will^[6] by pointing out that even a knower cannot give up all works. All that he is at liberty to do is to perform the obligatory duties at any time he likes unlike ordinary men who must do them at the fixed time only,—but cannot altogether omit them.^[7]