Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.14

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.1.14 by Roma Bose:

“If it be said that on account of the word (‘ānanda-maya’) denoting modification, (the highest self is) not (denoted by this word), (we reply:) no, on account of abundance.”

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

If it be said that on account of the mention of (the suffix) ‘mayaṭ’ in the sense of ‘modification’, the Highest Self is not that which consists of bliss,—(we reply:) no. Why? On account of the mention in Smṛti of (the suffix) ‘mayaṭ’ as having the sense of ‘abundance’ as well.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: That which consists of bliss cannot be the Highest Self. Why? “On account of the word denoting modification”, i.e. on account of the mention of the suffix ‘mayaṭ’ as having the sense of ‘modification’,—beginning: ‘Mayaṭ is used optionally in the classical language after any base (to indicate “product” and “part”) when, food and dress are meant’ (Pāṇini-sūtra 4.3.143; Siddhānta-kaumudī 1523^[1]), Smṛti goes on to designate (the suffix) ‘mayaṭ’ in the sense of modification thus:—‘(The suffix “mayaṭ” is used) invariably after words in which the vowel has been lengthened and after “śara” and the rest’ (Pān. 4.3.144; Siddhānta-kaumudī 1524^[3]);—and also because the suffix ‘mayaṭ’ is found used in the sense of ‘modification’ in ordinary life in expressions like: ‘An earthen^[4] pot’ and so on, as well as in the Veda, in passages like: ‘A large branch of the parṇa^[5] wood^[6] is the sacrificial ladle and so on,—

(We reply:) “No.” Why? “On account of abundance”, i.e. because Smṛti depicts (the suffix) ‘mayaṭ’ in the sense of ‘abundance’ as well, in the passage: ‘Mayaṭ’ is added in the sense of ‘made thereof’^[7] and in the sense of‘having a great portion of’^[8] (Pāṇini-sūtra 5.4.21; Siddhānta-kaumudī 2089^[9]); and because the suffix ‘mayaṭ’ is found used in the sense of‘abundance’, too, in ordinary expressions like ‘A sacrifice abounding in food’^[10] and so on.

It cannot be said also that since Brahman is admitted to be consisting of bliss, there may be some want of bliss in Him,^[11]—because here ‘abundance’ is but a synonym for ‘very muchness’. Thus, among (all the effects of prakṛti) beginning with mahat and ending with the body, the body being a transformation of food,^[12] is said to be the person ‘consisting of food’. Other than and the supporter of it is ‘that which consists of the vital-breath’. Other than and the supporter of these two is ‘that which consists of mind’. Other than and the controller of these three is the individual soul, called ‘the person consisting of understanding’. That which is of the nature of knowledge and has understanding as its attribute (viz. the individual soul) is the controller of the three non-sentient persons. That this possessor of the attribute of understanding is of the nature of knowledge, will be made clear in the-second chapter.^[13] But why, then, has the attribute alone been indicated in the text: ‘Understanding performs a sacrifice?’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5). Listen. The very nature, too, of the knower is self-manifesting, and the use of the term ‘understanding’ or the nominative case-ending should be understood to be referring to it. The use of the neuter gender^[14] is meant for denoting a thing.^[15] For this very reason, in the Kāṇva recension, viz. ‘Who abiding in understanding’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.22), and in the Mādhyandina recension, viz. ‘Who abiding in the self’ (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.6.7.30{GL_NOTE::}), in spite of the difference of words, the meaning, viz. the individual soul, is the very same. And for this very reason, the statement: ‘Understanding performs a sacrifice, and deeds too’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5) is perfectly justifiable, it being impossible for the mere attribute of understanding to be an agent. And, it, the individual soul, the knower, should be known to be possessed of bliss, in accordance with the text: ‘That is one human bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.8), as well as another scriptural text: ‘For verily, on getting this essence, one becomes blissful’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7). The Supreme Person, an ocean of immense bliss in contrast to its (viz. the individual soul’s) little bliss, is the controller of all, referred to in the text: ‘Verily, other than and within that which consists of understanding, is the self which consists of bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5). Moreover, the Supreme Person, the One, is indeed established in all the Vedāntas as free from all faults by nature, so there is not even an odour of slightest non-bliss in Him,—so much in brief.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P. 786, vol. 1.

[2]:

P. 786, vol. 1.

[3]:

Mṛn-maya.

[4]:

Parṇa is a large-leaved sacred tree, whose wood is used for making sacred vessels, later generally called ‘palāśa’. Monier-Williams, p. 606.

[5]:

Parṇa-mayī.

[6]:

Tad-vacana.

[7]:

Prakṛta-vacana, meaning ‘Prācuryyeṇa prastutam prakṛtam, tasya vacanam’. Siddhānta-kaumudī 2089, p. 931, vol. 1.

[8]:

Op. cit.

[9]:

Anna-maya.

[10]:

That is, when it is said: ‘Anna-maya yajña’. it is meant that the sacrifice consists mostly of food, but not entirely. Similarly, it might be thought that the expression: ‘Ānanda-maya Brahman’ means that Brahman is mostly bliss but not entirely bliss, i.e. there is some non-bliss in Brahman.

[11]:

That is, it is food which being assimilated produces and keeps the body.

[12]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 2.3.18.

[13]:

Viz. ‘vijñānam’ in the text.

[14]:

That is, the word ‘understanding’ does not stand for a mere abstract attribute here, but for a concrete thing, viz. the individual soul, possessed of the attribute.

[15]:

P. 861, line 19.