Brahma-Sūtra 4.1.13

English of translation of Brahmasutra 4.1.13 by Roma Bose:

“On the attainment of that, (there follow) non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and prior sins on account of the designation of that.”

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

There take place “the non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and prior sins” on the part of a knower. Why? “On account of the designation,” viz. “To one who knows thus, evil deeds do not cling” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.14.3^[1]), “All his sins are burnt” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.24.3^[2]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Thus, for indicating clearly that if one wishes to have the obstructions removed in order that he may directly attain the place of the Highest Person, one should resort to the means with the greatest care, a discussion about the repetition of the means and so on was undertaken in the chapter dealing with the end. Now, the author shows how on the rise of knowledge all obstructions cease immediately.

The text; “Just as water does not cling to the lotus-leaf, so no evil deeds cling to one who knows thus” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.14.3), declares that there is the non-clinging of the subsequent sins on the part of a knower. Again, the texts: “Just as a tuft of the Iṣikā-reed placed on a fire is burnt up, so all his sins are burnt up” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.24.3), “And all his works decay when he who is high and low is seen” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.2.8), declare that all his prior sins are destroyed. Here the, doubt is as to whether the non-clinging and destruction respectively, of the subsequent and prior sins on the part of one who has attained knowledge are justifiable or not. If it be suggested: In accordance with the declaration: “A work done, good or bad, must necessarily be experienced” (Brahma-vaivarta-purāṇa 26.70^[3]) and so.on, the consequences of the work done must necessarily he undergone. Hence the non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and prior sins are not justifiable; the scriptural texts about such non-clinging and destruction simply refer to the cessation of works the consequences of which have already been undergone,—

We reply: “On the attainment” of knowledge, otherwise called ‘steady remembrance’, ‘highest devotion’ and so on, through the maturity of such a meditation, “the non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and prior sins” are justifiable. Why? “On account of the designation of that,” i.e. on account of the designation of the non-clinging of the subsequent sins in the text: “To one who knows, thus, evil deeds do not cling” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.14.13),—this designation cannot be taken to be referring to the non-clinging of works the consequences of which have already been undergone, since in their case there being no question of clinging at all, there is no sense in the denial;—and on account of the designation of the destruction of prior sins in the passages: “So all his sins are burnt up” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.24.3), “And all his sins decay when he who is high and low is seen” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.2.8). This designation too cannot he taken to be referring to works the consequences of which have already been undergone since the destruction of such works holds good equally in the ease of a non-knower; and since the declaration: “A work which is not experienced does not decay even in hundreds of millions of ages. It must be experienced necessarily” (Brahma-vaivarta-purāṇa 26.70) and so on, refers to the case of non-knowers, and to works which have begun to produce consequences. Hence it is established that the non-clinging and destruction of a knower’s subsequent and prior sins, sprang up from thoughtlessness, are indeed justifiable.

Here ends the section entitled “On the attainment of that” (7).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

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

[2]:

Op. cit.

[3]:

P. 119, col, 2, line 12.