Brahma-Sūtra 3.4.44 (opponent’s view)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.4.44 by Roma Bose:

“Of the lord, on account of the scriptural statement about fruit, so Ātreya (thinks).”

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

The meditation based on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts is performed by the sacrifices, “so Ātreya” thinks, on account of the scriptural statement about the result attained, viz. “What alone one does with knowledge” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10 ^[1]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The view of one who knows is acceptable, but not that of one who does not know. Hence in the previous section the view of Jaimini has been accepted, while that of others has been rejected. Now by showing that the meditation on the subsidiary parts is the work of the officiating priest, and having thereby rejected the view of one who does not know, the author is again demonstrating that the view of only one who knows is acceptable.

On the doubt, viz. whether the meditation on the udgītha and the rest, the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, is the work of the sacrificer, the Lord, or of the sacrificing priest,—“of the Lord, so” the teacher “Ātreya” thinks. Why? “On account of the scriptural text about fruit,” i.e. because in the text: “What alone one does with knowledge” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10) the result produced, viz. greater potency, is declared to be pertaining to the sacrificer.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He too begins a new adhikaraṇa here (three sūtras), but concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. the special favour shown by the Lord to His nirapekṣa devotees. Hence the sūtra: “From the Lord (arises the fulfilment of all the wants of the nirapekṣa devotee), on account of the scriptural text about fruit, so Ātreya thinks”.^[2] Hence he does not take this sūtra as representing the opponent’s view.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Not quoted by others.

[2]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.4.44, pp. 289-290, Chap. 3.