Brahma-Sūtra 3.4.28

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.4.28 by Roma Bose:

“And the permission of all food (is valid) in the event of danger to life, on account of that being seen.”

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

The permission of all food in the text: “Verily, to one who knows thus, there is nothing whatever that is not food” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.2.1^[1]), is valid only “in the event of danger to life”, for Cākrāyaṇa ate the leavings of a rich man when his life was in danger, this being found in Scripture.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been stated that calmness and the rest are subsidiary parts of knowledge. Now, wishing to dispose of the objection, viz. like that, the eating of all food, too, is a subsidiary part of knowledge,—the author points out that such eating relates only to cases of life being in danger.

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, it is said: “Verily, what is not food is not taken by him” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.1.14); as well as in the Chāndogya: “Verily, to one who knows thus, there is nothing whatever that is not food” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.2.1). Here the doubt is, viz, whether this eating of all food by one who knows the vital-breath is valid, as a subsidiary part of the doctrine of the vital-breath, like calmness and so on, even when one is in a healthy state; or only in the event of danger to life. What is reasonable? If it be suggested: when one is in a healthy state,—we reply: only “in the event of danger to life”, there is “permission of all food”. Why? “On account of that being seen,” i.e. because in the text: “When the Kurus were destroyed by hail-storm^[2]” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.10.1), the eating of improper food is found to be allowable only in the event of life being in danger. When all food being eaten up by a kind of animals called ‘maṭacī’ there came to be a famine among the Kurus, then the sage Cākrāyaṇa, seized with hunger, ate the leavings of an elephant-keeper^[3]. From this it is known that the eating of all food is permitted even to one who knows the vital-breath only in the event of danger to life.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Interpretation same, but he takes this adhikaraṇa as concerned specially with the pariniṣṭha devotee.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[2]:

Śrīnivāsa, however, understands the word as a kind of crop-destroying animals. See below.

[3]:

Vide Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.10.1-5 for the story. The sage ate the leavings because he would have died without food, but refused to drink leavings because he could survive without drink.