Brahma-Sūtra 1.4.9

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.9 by Roma Bose:

“But (the unborn one is) that which has light (i.e. Brahman) for its beginning (i.e. cause), for thus some read.”

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

If it be objected that in the sacred text about the cup (camasa), it is known from the complementary text: ‘It is the head’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.2.3) that the cup is the head; now what is the convincing reason for understanding a particular meaning in the sacred text about the unborn one?—

We reply: That of which “light”, i.e. Brahman, is the “beginning”, i.e. cause, is here denoted by the sacred text about the unborn one, for “thus” alone “some read”, viz. ‘From him arose Brahma, name, form and food’ (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.9).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Just as from the complementary passage: ‘This is the head, for there is a cup with its mouth below’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.2.3), it is known that nothing but the head is the cup, so there is no ground here for specifying out the unborn one, established by the Sāṃkhyas. On the contrary, that unborn one which has Brahman for its soul is to be understood in the sacred text about the unborn one (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.5), on the ground of prior and later texts,—so holds the author.

The term “but” implies certainty. Prakṛti, “which has light for its beginning”, is to be understood definitely in the sacred text about the unborn one. The compound; “which has light for its beginning” means: That of which the ‘beginning’, i.e, the instituting cause, is ‘light’, i.e. Brahman, celebrated in scriptural texts like: 'That the gods worship as the light of lights’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.16), ‘Now the light which shines higher than this heaven’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.13.7) and so on,—i.e. it should be understood to be that which has Brahman for its soul. In the Veda, the peculiar nature, qualities and the rest of Brahman alone being specially determined, no other topic has been dealt with; and hence, that alone which has Brahman for its cause is to be understood. The sense is: Beginning: ‘The speakers of Brahman say: “what is the cause”?’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.1) and so on, and rejecting the views of those who take time to be the first cause, of the Bauddhas, the Mīmāṃsakas, the Jains and the logicians, suggested in the passage: ‘Time, nature, destiny, accident’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.2), the text goes on: ‘Those, following meditation and concentration, saw God’s self-power, hidden by His own qualities’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.3). On account of this introductory text, in the sacred text about the unborn one (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.5), that unborn one alone which has been established by the Veda and which a power of Brahman,—the cause of the Universe and denoted by words like ‘light’ and the rest,—is to be understood, since subsequently also in the passages: ‘From this, the Māyin creates this universe, and in it the other is bound up with ‘Māyā’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.9), ‘But let one know prakṛti to be Māyā, and the Great Lord to be the Māyin’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.10), ‘The One, who rules over every source’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.11) and so on, that alone which has Brahman for its soul is established. For that very reason, it is declared in the same Upaniṣad that although this, as a power, is different from the possessor of powers, yet it is non-different from Brahman, because of having no existence and activity apart from the possessor of powers, thus: ‘On knowing the enjoyer, the object enjoyed and the Mover, ail has been said, this, is the three-fold Brahman’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.12). Here, the enjoyer is the-individual sold, denoted by the term ‘higher prakṛti’; the object-enjoyed is the non-sentient in its causal and effected states, denoted by the term ‘lower prakṛti’; and the Mover is the Highest Person, possessing the two prakṛtis, and denoted by the term ‘Brahman’. Thus, the phrase: ‘All is this Brahman’ establishes the non-difference of Brahman and the two prakṛtis, the objects to be controlled,—since the existence and activity of the latter two depend on their Controller,—in spite of there being a difference of nature between them and the Lord.

With a view to confirming that unborn one which is mentioned in the Veda, by that very Veda, the author establishes this once more in the words: “For thus some read”; that means, because thus some schools, i.e. the Ātharvaṇikas, “read” in the Muṇḍakopaniṣad that this unborn one has Brahman for its soul: ‘From him arose Brahmā, name, form and food’ (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.9); and because it is declared by the Lord Himself, in the passage: ‘“My womb is the great Brahman. In it I place the germ”’ (Gītā 14.3). In the Taittirīyaka, too, having introduced Brahman in the passage: ‘Smaller than the small’ (Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad 6.3^[1]), having, then, designated the origin of the entire universe,

implied by the vital-breath, in the passage: ‘Seven vital breaths arise from him’ (Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad 8.4), the text goes on to read after that: ‘By an unborn female, red, white and black, bringing forth manifold offspring of a like nature, lies an unborn male, enjoying. Another unborn male discards her, who has been enjoyed’ (Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad 9.2). And since this sacred text is to he taken as referring to prakṛti, which has Brahman for its soul, and since here, too, the same must inevitably be the case, that prakṛti alone which has Brahman for its soul is the object to be established by the sacred text about the unborn one.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

The interpretation of ‘jyotir-upakramā’ different, viz. ‘(The unborn one is) the beginning (i.e. the material cause) of light (i.e. of the four kinds of material objects, consisting in light, i.e. fire, water, and so on)’.^[2]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

This verse occurs also in Kaṭha 2.20 and Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 3.20.

[2]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.4.9, p. 402.