Sūtra 3.2.21 (Its diversity explained—continued)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 3.2.21:

शास्त्रसामर्थ्याच्च ॥ ३.२.२१ ॥

śāstrasāmarthyācca || 3.2.21 ||

śāstra-sāmarthyāt—from the authority (or force or significance) of the śāstras; ca—and.

21. (Plurality of Souls follows) also from the authority or significance of the Śāstras.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

(English rendering of Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary called Upaskāra from the 15th century)

He gives another proof:

[Read sūtra 3.2.21 above]

‘Śāstra’ means Veda or revelation. Because difference of Soul is proved by it also. For it is heard. “Two Brahmans (i.e., Souls) have to be known,” etc.; and also “Two birds, friends and kindred, embrace the same tree, etc.” (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad III, i. I.)—21.

Here ends the second chapter of the third book in the Commentary of Śrī Śaṅkara on the Aphorisms of Kaṇāda.

Commentary: The Vivṛti of Jayanārāyaṇa:

(English extracts of Jayanārāyaṇa Tarkapañcānana’s Vivṛti or ‘gloss’ called the Kaṇādasūtravivṛti from the 17th century)

It cannot be asked. “What then will be the fate of these texts, viz., “Thou art that, O Śvetaketu!” “One who knows Brahman, verily becomes Brahman,” etc.? For the text, “Thou art That,” conveys the sense of identity in this sense that what is devoted to, or, belongs to That, is not different from That. The text, “One who knows Brahman verily becomes Brahman, “does not convey the sense of identity, but that, of similary of the Jīva (i.e., the embodied Soul), to Īśvara (i.e., the Great Soul), in point of freedom from suffering etc.; for, otherwise, the text. ‘The stainless one attains to supreme similarity,” can have no meaning. In popular language also there is the topical use of identity in the sense of resemblance, as when there is an abundance of wealth, it is said, “this priest has become a king,” and so on. Nor should it be maintained that identity is produced in the state of salvation, on the cessation of ignorance or false knowledge, since difference, being eternal, is incapable of destruction, and even if we admit the destruction of difference, then since there is necessity for the existence of two individuals. So much in brief.

Commentary: The Bhāṣya of Candrakānta:

(English translation of Candrakānta Tarkālaṅkāra’s Bhāṣya called the Vaiśeṣikabhāṣya from the 19th century)

Interprets III. ii. 19, 20, and 21 in the monistic sense namely, that there exists only one Self, variously differentiated on the phenomenal plane, as witnessed by such texts as “One only, without a second,” “One shining Being is immanent in all created things,” “All Selves become one,” “All Selves emanate from this, Same Self,” Two birds,” etc.