Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.39

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.39 by Roma Bose:

“On account of care, there is non-omission.”

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

There is no negation of the attributes of having true desires and so on, recorded “carefully”, since the negation: “There is no plurality here” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.19; Katḥa 4.11^[1]) refers to the things not having Brahman for their essence.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It may be objected: The statement, made above, that the group of attributes like ‘being the controller’ and so on, mentioned in the Vājasaneyaka, is to be inserted in the Chāndogya, is not justifiable. In accordance with the text under discussion, viz. “It is to be perceived by the mind alone. There is no plurality here, He gets death after death who perceives here apparent plurality. It is to be looked upon as a unity alone,—this unknowable being” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.19-20), as well as in accordance with the subsequent text: “This soul is not this, not this” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.22), we arrive at the conclusion that the Highest is free from distinctions. Hence it is known that like grossness, atomicity and so on, the group of attributes like ‘being the controller’ and so on, is something to be negated. Hence, it should be known that in the Chāndogya too, the group of attributes like having true desires and so on, is something to be negated. This being so, such an absence of attributes is to be included in all the meditations subserving final release.—To this (the author) says:

There is “non-omission”, i.e. non-denial, of the attributes of the Highest Brahman, like ‘having true desires’ and so on and ‘being the controller’ and so on, which are incapable of being denied and are taught “carefully” as something new in the texts: “What is within that should be searched for” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.1.1), “This soul is free from sins, without old age, without death, without grief, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.1.5), “Those who go, having found here the soul and the true desires, come to have free movement in all the worlds” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.1.6), “The controller of all, the ruler of all” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.22; 5.6.1), “He is the Lord of all, he is the ruler of all beings, he is the protector of all beings” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.22), “He is the separating dam for keeping these worlds apart” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.22) and so on. On the contrary, they are to be inserted, there being no authority for their denial.

The scriptural test: “There is no plurality here” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.19; Katḥa 4.11) states, on the other hand, that in Brahman, who is the cause of the world, who is different and non-different from the sentient and the non-sentient and who has the stated marks, there is no ‘plurality’, i.e. there are no objects which, not having their existence and activity dependent on Him are dependent on one another only. Since everything has Brahman for its essence, ‘he who perceives here apparent plurality’, not having Brahman for his essence, ‘gets death after death’. He is to be ‘looked upon as a unity alone since all things have Brahman for their essence, and since there is nothing which does not have Brahman for its essence. This is what the text designates, hut it does not prove that the real attributes of Brahman are to be denied.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 40 in Śaṅkara’s commentary. They begin a new adhikaraṇa here (two sūtras), concerned with an entirely different topic, viz. whether the Prāṇāgni-hotra or the offering of the first food to the vital-breaths, enjoined in the Chāndogya (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.19.1), is to be omitted when eating itself is omitted or not. This sūtra states the prima facie view, viz. that there is no omission of the offering to the vital-breath even when there is the omission of eating, but it has to be performed by means of water in place of food, since the Jābāla version of the same vidyā (viz. Vaiśvānara-vidyā) shows great respect for this ceremony of Prāṇāgni-hotra.

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He takes it to be an adhikaraṇa by itself, and interprets it in a sectarian way. The question is whether the form of the Lord as having a blue neck (Nīla-kaṇṭha), having Umā by His side and having attributes like true desires and so on is something to be negated or not. The prima facie view is that having parts like a blue neck and so on involves increase and decrease and hence it is not possible on the part of Brahman, the immutable. Therefore, the attributes of having a blue neck, having Umā by the side and so on, are not His real attributes, but are simply imagined for the sake of meditation and are, as such, subject to negation sometime or other. The answer is: “There is no negation (of the attributes having a blue neck, three eyes, Umā by the side and so on), since (they are designated in Scripture) with (great) care”. That is, the Lord (viz. Śiva) is to be meditated on always as having a blue neck and so on and as accompanied by Umā,—which are His real attributes—for such a meditation alone leads to release.^[2]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 41 in his commentary. Here he concludes the topic of Śrī, viz. her identity with the parā-śakti of the Lord. The problem is that if Śrī be identical with the parā-śakti of the Lord, then she must be identical with the Lord Himself, since the parā-śakti of the Lord is identical with Him. In that case, however, she cannot be devoted to the Lord, since none can be devoted to one’s own self. The answer is: “On account of (her great) regard (for the Lord), there is non-cessation (of her devotion for Him)”. That is, Śrī, though one with the Lord, cannot but love and be devoted to Him who is her very existence, just as the branch cannot but love the tree, or the ray the moon.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja.

[2]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 3.3.39, pp. 354-355, Parts 10 and 11.

[3]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.41, p. 185, Chap. 3. “Satyapya bhede vicitra-guṇaratnākarat-vena sva-mūlatvena ca śriyaḥ parasmin ādarāt tad bhakter lopaḥ. Na khalu-vṛkṣam anādriyamānā śākhāsti, na candraṃ tatprabhā.”