Brahma-Sūtra 3.4.20 (correct conclusion, end)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.4.20 by Roma Bose:

“Or, (there is) an injunction, as in the case of holding.”

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

There is indeed “an injunction”. Just as with regard to the enjoined Agni-hotra, it is said in Scripture: “Let him follow holding the sacrificial faggot below (the ladle). He holds it above for the gods” (Āpastamba-śrauta-sūtra 9.11.8-9^[1]),—in this text^[2] the holding above (of the faggot) by separating (it) is enjoined, since it is something new (not enjoined anywhere)—so is the case here.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Having thus pointed out that even if we hold that there is (only) a re-mention (of those stages of life and not injunction), still then the other stage of life may be proved to exist, (the author now) points out that in this text there is indeed an injunction with regard to them and not a re-mention.

The word “or” implies emphasis. In the stated text there is indeed “an injunction” with regard to those stages of life. Apprehending the objection that the text will cease to be a coherent and unbroken whole if it he admitted that in one and the same text there is an injunction with regard to many stages of life,—(the author) says: “As in the case of holding”. Just as with regard to the enjoined Agni-hotra it is declared by Scripture: “Let him follow holding the sacrificial faggot below (the ladle). He holds it above for the gods” (Āpastamba-śrauta-sūtra 9.11.8-9)—here though occurring in the same sentence with the holding of the faggot below the ladle, the holding of the faggot, by separating it, over the clarified butter placed in a ladle is-enjoined because of being something new (not enjoined before),^[3]—so here too. It has been said in the section treating of what is complimentary (action): “But (there is) an injunction with regard to the holding, on account of being something new” (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.4.3^[4]). Although with regard to this stage of life, there is an injunction celebrated in a text of the Jābāla, viz. “Having completed the life of a religious student, let one become a house-holder. Having become a house-holder, let one become a dweller in the forest. Having become a dweller in the forest, let one wander forth. Or else, let one wander forth from the very life of a religious student, or from the house, or from the forest. The day one gets indifferent to the world, let him wander forth on that very day” (Jābāla 4),—yet it is shown by his Holiness that the other stage of life occurs in other texts as well irrespective of that,—this is to be understood here. The texts, viz. “He who extinguishes the fire is the slayer of the hero of the gods” (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 1.5,2). “After having brought an acceptable gift for the teacher, let him not cut off the line of progeny” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad I. II), “One who is childless does not possess the world” (Aitareya-upaniṣad Br. 33.1) and so on, are concerned with people hankering after enjoyment. Hence it is established that the end of men arises from knowledge.

Here ends the section entitled “The end of Men” (1).

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He continues here the same topic, viz, whether a knower of Brahman must work or not. Hence the sūtra; “Or (the text designating that a knower of Brahman may perform his duties in any way is) an injunction, like the holding (i.e. studying)”. That is, the above text is an injunction with reference to the pariniṣṭha devotees, allowing them to act according to their will, just like the injunction, viz. that a Brāhmaṇa is to be initiated in order that he may study the Veda.^[5]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P. 157, vol. 2. The texts read, “Adastāt samidhaṃ dhārayan dakṣineṇa vihāram udravati” (8). “Upari devebhya dhārayati iti vijñāyate” (9). Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[2]:

Other editions read “vākyam” instead of “vākye”.

[3]:

I.e. the above passage may be conceived as a coherent and unbroken whole if we take it to be referring to one thing only, viz. the holding of the faggot below. Nevertheless,we conceive it as en joining the holding of the faggot above too, since this latter is not enjoined anywhere else.

[4]:

The sūtra really reads: “Vidhistu apūrvatvāt syāt”.

[5]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.4.20, p. 257, Chap. 3.