Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.17

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.1.17 by Roma Bose:

“Not the other, on account of in appropriateness.”

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

The qualities peculiar to the Lord, which are mentioned in Scripture as relating to that which is signified by the term ‘consisting of bliss ḥ being “inappropriate” on the part of anything else, “the other”, i.e. the individual soul, is not signified by the term ‘consisting of bliss’.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

“The other”, i.e. the individual, soul is not to be understood here by the term ‘consisting of bliss’. Why? “On account of inappropriateness”, i.e. the creatorship of the entire world and the like, mentioned as relating to that which consists of. bliss in the scriptural text: “He wished: ‘May I be many, may I procreate’. He created all this” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.6), are not appropriate on the part of the individual soul. Hence that which consists of bliss is Brahman alone.

Or else, the following construction (of the sūtra) may be understood:—The individual souḥ “other than” Brahman, is not “mantra-described”, because the qualities which are peculiar to the “mantra-described”, viz. being the object to be attained by the wise and so on, are “inappropriate” on the part of anything else.

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

Reading same, interpretation different—‘The other (viz. the individual) (is) not (the object of the text: “Truth, knowledge and infinite”, Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1), on account of inappropriateness’. That is. Rāmānuja takes this sūtra as continuing more particularly the theme of the preceding sūtra where it has been shown that Brahman is designated by the text ‘Truth, knowledge and infinite’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1). Here it is shown, he points out, that none else than the Lord, not even the freed soul, can be the object of the above text, for even the freed soul is not absolute^[1] knowledge in the sense the Lord is, as even the freed soul cannot wish to be many and so on. So it is not appropriate that the individual soul can ever be the object of the above text and be identical with Brahman.^[2]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

Beading same, interpretation different, viz. ‘The other (viz. Hiraṇyagarbha) (is) not (the cause of the world), on account of inappropriateness’. According to Śrīkaṇṭha a new adhikaraṇa begins with this sūtra (sūtras 17-20), concerned with the question whether the Lord is the cause of the world, or someone else, viz. Hiraṇyagarbha.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Nirupādhika.

[2]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 1.1.17, pp. 193-194, Part 1.

[3]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 1.1.17, pp. 230-237, Part 3.