Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.3

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.3 by Roma Bose:

“Because (the head-rite is a subsidiary part) of the study of the Veda (and not of vidyā), (it) being so (there is) that restriction, (because it is mentioned to be so) in the Samācāra, and because of the topic, and as in the case of libations.”

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

And that head-rite too, which is mentioned in the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda thus: “Let one declare this knowledge of Brahman to them alone by whom, however, the head-rite has been performed according to rules” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.2.10^[1]), does not prove that the vidyās are different, since the head-rite is enjoined as a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda. It being a subsidiary part of the Vedic study, is not performed by any one other than a follower of the Atharva-veda, and hence there is “that restriction”.^[2] Since in the book called “Samācāra” too they record the head-rite as a Vedic rite, and since there is a text: “One who had practised the vow does not read this” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.2.11^[3]), that restriction is indeed appropriate, as it is in the case of oblations, beginning with the Sauryya [Saurya].

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If the rite of carrying a pot of burning charcoals on the head, taught as a sacred duty in the text of the followers of the Atharva-veda thus: “Let one declare the knowledge of Brahman to them alone by whom, however, the head-rite has been performed according to rules” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.2.10), were a subsidiary part of the vidyā, then only we could have said that the vidyās are different. But as it is not a subordinate part of vidyā, we cannot do so.^[4] The word “because” states the reason, i.e. because the sacred duty called ‘head-rite’ is a subsidiary part “of the study of the Veda” alone, and not of the vidyā stated in it. “(It) being so,” i.e. the head-rite being a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda, there is “that restriction”, i.e. the restriction with regard to the teaching of the rite, viz. that the sacred duty called ‘head-rite’ is to be perfomed by the followers of the Atharva-veda, and not by others. How is this known? “In the Samācāra,” i.e. in a book concerned with teaching Vedic rites, the followers of the Atharva-veda record the head-rite as a Vedic rite,—from that this is known; also “from the topic”, i.e. because in the subsequent and concluding text: “One who has not practised the vow does not read this” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.2.11), the word ‘this’ refers to the collection of the Muṇḍaka-treatises forming the topic previously treated; further, the word ‘reads’ means ‘studies’.

Here (the author) quotes a parallel instance: “And as in the case of libations”. The ‘libations’, i.e. the seven oblations, beginning with the Sāuryya and ending with the Śataudana, have no connection with the three fires mentioned in a different branch, but are connected with the one fire mentioned by the texts belonging to the Atharva-veda, and hence they are to be offered to one fire by the followers of the Atharva-veda alone. In the very same manner, the followers of the Atharva-veda alone are entitled to perform the sacred duty called ‘head-rite’, which is a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda, and not others. In the text: “Let one declare the knowledge of Brahman” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.2.10), on the other hand, the word ‘Brahman’ denotes the sound Brahman (i.e. the Vedas).^[5]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

He reads “salila-vac ca” in place of “sava-vac ca”.^[6] Interpretation same.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He breaks the sūtra into two separate sūtras thus: “Svādhyayasya.... adhicārac ca” (sūtra 3), and “Sava-vac ca tan niyama” (sūtra 4). Interpretations entirely different, viz.:—

Sūtra 3: “For the injunction of the study of the Veda being such (i.e. of a general import), and because of the eligibility (of all) to the sacred duties (mentioned in the Veda), (the entire Veda must be studied)”. That is, injunctions like “Let one study his own sacred text” (Taittirīya-āraṇyaka 2.15) do not specify that only one particular portion of the Veda is to be studied, but that it is to be studied entirely. Moreover, the followers of one branch are not necessarily confined to the sacred duties of that branch only, but to all the duties enjoined in all the branches. Hence Brahman may be realized by all the religious practices taught in all the Vedas.^[7]

Sūtra 4: “And the restriction is not like libations”. That is, the seven libations, beginning with the Sauryya [Saurya] and ending with the Śataudana, are open to the followers of the Atharva-veda only, and cannot be offered by the followers of other Vedas. But such is not the case with the worship of Brahman, which is universal and may be performed by any and every one.^[8]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[2]:

Viz. that only those who have performed the head-rite are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman.

[3]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Baladeva, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[4]:

This answers the prima facie view mentioned above under Vedānta-kaustubha 3.3.1.

[5]:

That is, the head-rite being a Vedic rite, a part of the Vedic study,—those who practise it become entitled to the knowledge of the Atharva-veda in general.

[6]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.3.3. p. 176.

[7]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.3, pp. 114-115, Chap. 3.

[8]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.3, pp. 114-115, Chap. 3.