Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)
by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words
English translation of the Brahma-sutra 1.1.8, including the commentary of Nimbarka and sub-commentary of Srinivasa known as Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and Vedanta-kaustubha resepctively. Also included are the comparative views of important philosophies, viz., from Shankara, Ramanuja, Shrikantha, Bhaskara and Baladeva.
Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.8
English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.1.8 by Roma Bose:
“And (pradhāna cannot be denoted by the terms ‘existent’, ‘self’ and the rest), because there is no (scriptural) statement of its having to be abandoned.”
Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):
That the non-sentient substance, taught by the terms ‘existent’ and the rest and to be abandoned in salvation, is to be abandoned, as well as the purpose of the teaching[1] ought to have been pointed out by Scripture, omniscient and the well-wisher of men. Because of the absence of these two kinds of texts, pradhāna is not denoted by the terms ‘existent’ and the like.
Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)
If the non-sentient pradhāna alone were taught as that which is denoted by the terms ‘existent’, ‘perceiver’ and the like, then, in order to prevent reliance upon that, Scripture, omniscient, well-wishing, and intending to instruct Brahman, should have told that it is to be rejected, just as a mother says to her son, about to take something not good, ‘Son, this is not good But there is no statement that it is to be rejected; on the contrary, an identity with it is taught in the passage: ‘Thou art that’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.7; 6.9.8; 6.10.3; 6.11.3; 6.12.3; 6.13.3; 6.14.3; 6.15.3; 6.16.3). The term “and” is meant for including (another reason, viz.) the absence of statement indicating the purpose of such a teaching.
Comparative views of Śaṅkara:
Reading same, interpretation same on the whole. Only, while Nimbārka interprets the term “Ca” to mean ‘the purpose of such a teaching’, Śaṅkara takes it to mean ‘the contradiction of the initial proposition’, viz. the cause being known, the effects are also known.[2] Evidently, through the knowledge of the non-sentient pradhāna, there can be no knowledge of the sentient souls. Hence pradhāna cannot be the cause of the universe.[3]
Rāmānuja:
Reading and interpretation same. He gives no special meaning of the term “ca”, but takes it to mean simply ‘also’, and not a second reason.[4]
Comparative views of Bhāskara:
Reading and interpretation same on the whole. Bhāskara interprets this sūtra exactly after Śaṅkara, taking the term “ca” to mean ‘contradiction of the initial proposition’.[5]
Comparative views of Baladeva:
Reading same, interpretation different, viz. ‘And because there is no statement of the rejectibility [rejectability] (of the Saguṇa Brahman)’. That is, Scripture declares the inferiority and worthlessness of all saguṇa objects, or objects connected with the guṇas of prakṛti, viz. all worldly, objects. Hence, if the Saguṇa Brahman were the creator of the world, then Scripture would have designated him as inferior and fit to be rejected.[6]
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
That is, if pradhāna be denoted by the terms ‘existent’, ‘self’ and the rest, then evidently, such a self, etc., cannot serve the purpose of salvation. Hence there must be some other purpose for the teaching of pradhāna, since Scripture does not teach anything which does not fulfil an end. But there is no indication in Scripture what this other purpose is.
[3]:
Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.1.8, p. 209.