Brahma-Sūtra 3.4.41

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.4.41 by Roma Bose:

“And not even (the expiation) treated (in the section) about rights (is possible on the part of a transgressing hermit and the like), on account of its ineffectiveness by reason of the inference (i.e. Smṛti passage) about the fall.”

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

The expiation, formulated in the section treating of rights,^[1] is not possible on the part of a perpetual religious student bound by chastity, “On account of its ineffectiveness” in his case, in conformity with the Smṛti passage: “But the twice-born who having ascended the state of a perpetual religious student bound by chastity deviates therefrom,—I do not see any expiation whereby he, the slayer of himself, may be purified” (Agni 165.23a-24b,^[2] Atri-smṛti 816^[3]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. Inadvertence (and not wilful negligence) may be the cause of one’s deviation from the stage of life one has reached; and expiation may entitle such a fallen one to knowledge once more,—the author replies ‘no’.

An expiation is mentioned in the text: “A religious student who has deviated from the vow of chastity should sacrifice an ass to Nirṛti”. It is formulated in the sixth chapter, treating of rights, under the aphorism: “The Avakīrṇi-paśu (sacrifice) also (is to be performed like that (viz. the Sthapati-iṣṭi), since the time for the installation of fire bas not arrived” (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 6.8.22). This is said, to be “treated (in the section) about rights”. This is not available for one who has deviated from the vow of a perpetual religious student bound by chastity. Why? “On account of its ineffectiveness by reason of the inference about the fall”, i.e. because in conformity with a Smṛti passage indicating the fall as very difficult to be atoned for, the expiation is not effective for him. The Smṛti passage is as follows: “But the twice-born who having ascended the state of a perpetual religious student, bound by chastity, deviates therefrom,—1 do not see any expiation whereby he, the slayer of himself, may be purified” (Agni 165.23a-34b, Atri-smṛti 8.16). The word “even” (in the sūtra) suggests that the stated expiation is valid for a religious student who becomes a house-holder after the completion of his study.^[4]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Interpretation totally different, viz. “and (the nirapekṣa devotee does) not (desire for) even the office (of world-rulership and the like), on account of the inference (i.e. possibility) of fall (from such office), (and) because (he has) no connection with those (offices)”, i.e. no wish for them.^[5]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 6.8.22.

[2]:

Pp. 158-159. Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha

[3]:

P. 33, line 19. Reading slightly different, viz. “Yena śuddhyati karmaṇā”.

[4]:

I.e. an upakurvāṇa. A naiṣṭhika remains a religions student all his life, but an upakurvāṇa only for a time.

[5]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.4.41, p. 285, Chap. 3.