Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.2

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.1.2 by Roma Bose:

“(Brahman is that) from whom (arise) the origin and the rest of this (world).”

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

Now, with regard to the characteristics of Brahman, the author states the correct conclusion:

That very Lord—the substratum of infinite attributes like omniscience, etc. and the ruler of Brahmā, Śiva time and the rest,—from whom arise the origination, subsistence and dissolution “of this”, i.e. of the universe,—endowed with manifold combinations, the abode of innumerable peculiarities of names and forms and the like; and the form of which is inconceivable,—is Brahman, the object of the above statement (viz. Sū. 1.1.1)—this is the meaning of the characterizing text.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Brahman, called Lord Kṛṣṇa, great in qualities, powers and nature, has been established in the previous section. Now, with reference to the enquiry: What are His characteristics?—the same Being (viz. Brahman) is being demonstrated, as having the qualities of ‘being the agent of the origin and the rest of the world’, ‘being omniscient’, ‘being true’ and so on.

Here the words “of this” denote the effect, viz. the world; and the words “from whom” denote the cause. The word ‘Brahman’ is to be supplied here from the previous aphorism. And, there being an universal correlation between the terms ‘yat’ and ‘tat’, the term ‘tat’ too must be supplied here.^[1]

(Next the compound “janmādi” is explained:—) ‘That of which “origin” is the beginning’—is “janmādi”, i.e. creation, subsistence, dissolution and salvation. This is a Bahuvrīhi compound of the tad-guṇa-saṃjñāna type.^[2]

That “from whom”,—i.e. the Lord, the Highest Person, the Lord of all, omniscient, omnipotent, the supreme cause and the ruler of all,—arise the origination, subsistence, dissolution, and salvation “of this”, i.e. of the world, which is manifested by names and forms connected with enjoyers (viz. the souls) divided variously; which is the constant abode of the enjoying of place, time and fruits; and the composition of which is beyond the grasp of reasoning—is Brahman. He alone is to be enquired into by those who desire for salvation,—this is the construction of the words in the aphorism.

There are scriptural texts to this effect,—beginning:—‘Bhṛgu, the son of Varuṇa approached his father, (with the request) “Sir, teach me Brahman”’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 3.1), and continuing:—‘“From, whom, verily, all these beings arise, by whom they, so horn, live and to whom they go forth and enter,—enquire into that, that is Brahman (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 3.1), ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1) and so on. (The meaning of the first of the above two texts is:—) ‘From whom’, i.e. from Lord Puruṣottama, ‘all these beings’, i.e. all objects from the mahat down to a tuft of grass, ‘arise’,—hereby the origination (of the world from the Lord) is indicated. ‘By whom, they, so born, live’,—hereby the subsistence (of the world in Brahman) is indicated. ‘They enter’,—hereby the dissolution (of the world into the Lord) is shown. ‘To whom they go forth,’—meaning—‘whom they attain after the destruction of all karmas’,—hereby salvation (of the souls) is indicated. Here ‘origination’ means the expansion of the manifold consciousness of the sentient being, due to its connection with a body and the rest; and ‘dissolution’ means its entrance into the Cause (viz. Brahman), resulting from the contraction of its consciousness.’ This will be made clear under the explanations of the two aphorisms, viz. ‘Dependent on the movable and the immovable’ (Brahma-sūtra 2.3.16) and so on: The distinction (between the sentient and the non-sentient) is that the non-sentient is more primary, having a different form at the beginning of creation.^[3]

The meaning of the second text, on the other hand, is that Brahman possesses the attributes of truth, knowledge and infinitude. Here, the word ‘truth’ distinguishes the Lord from what is not true, the word ‘knowledge’ from the group of the non-sentient, and the word ‘infinite’ from the group of the sentient.

And, thus it is established that the characteristic mark of Brahman is that He, being the one non-distinct material and efficient cause of the universe, is possessed of truth and the rest. He is the material cause^[4] in the sense of being the manifestor, in a gross form, of His own natural powers, denoted by the terms ‘higher’, ‘lower’ and so on, and reduced to a subtle state; as well as of the effects, existent and inherent in them respectively. He is the efficient cause^[5] in the sense of bringing about a union of the sentient beings,—whose attribute of knowledge is in a state of absolute contraction being under the influence of the past impressions of their own karmas which are beginningless, and is, thereby, unfit for bringing about the recollection (in their minds) of the retributive experiences (to be undergone in the present birth),—with their respective karmas, and the respective instruments for experiencing them, through manifesting (in them) knowledge, enabling them to experience the fruits of karmas.^[6]

There is a Smṛti passage too, conformable to the text dealing with the topic in hand, (i.e. the above Taittirīya text, 3.1) in the Mokṣa-dharma.^[7] It begins: ‘The Scripture which was mentioned by Bhṛgu to Bhāradvāja, who asked’ (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 12.6769b^[8]), and continues: ‘“He, verily, is the Lord Viṣṇu, celebrated to be infinite, abiding as the inner Soul of all beings, and difficult to be known by those who have not obtained the self, who is the creator of the principle of egoity for the production of all beings, from whom arose the universe, about whom I have been asked by you here”’ (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 12.6784b-6786a^[9]).

If it be objected:—In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, a multitude of causes is spoken of in the passage: ‘Time, nature, destiny, accident, elements and the Person should be known as the Cause’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.2), so what authority is there for separating specifically Vāsudeva, the Highest Person alone as the cause of the world?—(then we reply:) Listen. A multitude of scriptural and Smṛti passages is our authority for specifying the cause of the world. Compare the following:—‘He, the One, who governs all these causes, connected with time and soul’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.3), ‘He who is a knower, the Time of time, possessed of attributes, omniscient’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.2), ‘Of whom there is neither a creator, nor a lord’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.9), ‘Verily, Nārāyaṇa was One’ (Mahā-upaniṣad 1.2), ‘Then there was Viṣṇu, Hari alone, without parts’, ‘From Nārāyaṇa is born Brahma, from Nārāyaṇa is born Rudra’ (Nārāyaṇa-upaniṣad 1), ‘From the forehead of this being, wrapt up within himself in meditation, was born the Person, with three-eyes, trident in hand’ (Mahā-upaniṣad 1.7), ‘Kṛṣṇa, the One, the ruler, moving everywhere, is an object of worship, He who, though one, yet appears as many “‘Ka’ is the name of Brahman, I am the ‘Īśa’, i.e. the Lord, of all beings. We two have sprung up from your body, hence you have the name ‘Keśava’”, ‘I, Brahma, the primary Lord of people, am born from Him, and you have sprung up from me’, ‘Kṛṣṇa alone is the source of the worlds, and of their dissolution too’, ‘Being created by Kṛṣṇa the universe consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient has originated’. ‘In the Veda, and in Rāmāyaṇa, verily, in the Bhārata and in the Pañca-rātra, Hari is celebrated everywhere, in the beginning, in the end, and in the middle’ (Harivaṃśa 16232^[10]). ‘“I am the origin of the entire world, dissolution similarly”’ (Gītā 7.6), ‘“There is nothing else higher than me, O Dhanañjaya”’ (Gītā 7.7), ‘“I am the source of everything, everything originates from me”’ (Gītā 10.8) and so on. The terms ‘Hiraṇyagarbha’ and the rest, which we find sometimes in certain texts concerning the origin and so on of the world, should be known to be referring to Brahman. Hence it is established that Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Soul of all, the Lord of all, the one topic of all the Vedas, is the cause of the world.

Here ends the section entitled ‘The Origin’ (2).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Comparison of Nimbārka’s reading and interpretation (of Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.2) with the readings and interpretations of Śaṅkara.

Reading and interpretation same. Of course, consistently with his doctrine, Śaṅkara must hold that here the term ‘Brahman’ denotes ‘Īśvara’ or the lower Brahman.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Thus the construction of the sūtra is:—‘Janmādy asya yataḥ Brahmaṇaḥ tataḥ’.

[2]:

There are two kinds of Bahuvrīhi, viz. tad-guṇa-saṃjñāna and atad-guṇa-saṃjñāna. In the former case, the compounds, the noun (viśeṣya) has direct connection with and implies the words compounded (viśeṣaṇas), e.g. when it is said ^‘Bring the man with long ears’ (Lamba-karṇam ānaya), the bringing of the man implies the bringing of his attribute, viz. the ears, as well and the man (viśeṣya) and his ears (viśeṣaṇas) are directly connected. In the latter case, there is no such direct connection between the compound and the words compounded, e.g. when it is said ‘Bring the man who has seen the sea’ (Drṣṭa-sāgaram ānaya), the bringing of the man does not imply the bringing of his attribute, viz. the sea, and there is no direct connection between the two.

Now, ‘Janmādi’ is a Bahuvrīhi of the first kind and hence it includes in its meaning ‘janma’ too.

[3]:

That is, the non-sentient is more primary than the sentient in the sense that it is prior to the sentient in point of time, night in the beginning of creation, the individual soul does not exist, in the sense that there is nobody with which it may be connected, but pradhāna does, though not in the form of particular non-sentient substances like stones and houses, etc., and the body comes to be evolved later on. Cf. Sāṃkhya theory of evolution.

[4]:

Upādānatva.

[5]:

Nimittatva.

[6]:

The Lord is the material cause of the universe in the sense that creation means the manifestation of His subtle powers of the sentient and the non-sentient into gross effects. That is, during dissolution, the entire universe of the sentient and the non-sentient merges in the Lord and exists in Him in a subtle state as His natural powers. Then, in the beginning of a new creation, the Lord manifests these powers of the sentient and the non-sentient (cit-śakti and acit-śakti), developing them into grosser effects and producing, thereby, the universe of names and forms.

And the Lord is the efficient cause of the universe in the sense that He unites individual souls with their respective karmas, the results of these karmas, and the instruments for experiencing them—that is, the Lord is the efficient cause in the sense that He regulates the destinies of individual souls in accordance with strict justice. During dissolution, the beginningless impressions of past karmas get dimmed and confused; and at the time of a new creation, the Lord revives these impressions in particular individuals, thereby making each individual undergo the fruits of his past works. Vide Vedānta-ratnamañjūṣā, p. 63.

[7]:

^‘Mokṣa-dharma’ is the name of a section of the twelfth book of the Māhābhārata, from adhyaya 174 to the end.

[8]:

p. 604, line 7, vol. 3.

[9]:

Op. cit., lines 22-24.

[10]:

P. 1002, vol. 4.