Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.21

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.1.21 by Roma Bose:

“That which is within (the sun and the eye) (is none but the Highest Self), on account of the teaching of his qualities.”

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

He who abides “within” the sun and the eye and is to be worshipped by one desiring salvation, is, truly, the Highest Self alone, and not a particular individual soul. Why? “On account of the teaching of the qualities belonging to Him” alone, viz. qualities like ‘freedom from sins’, ‘being the soul of all’ and so on.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

In this manner, it has been shown in a general manner in the two sections that the stated texts all refer to Brahman, who is different from pradhāna as well as from the individual soul and is the cause of the origin and the rest of the world. Now, after having mentioned the peculiar qualities of the Lord, such as, possessing an eternally present, non-celestial body and so on, and then by showing the concordance of those texts (with regard to the Lord), the author denotes, up to the end of the section, the difference of Brahman from particular individual souls who have attained eminence by virtue of supreme merit, as well as from particular non-sentient objects, like time and the like.

In the Chāndogya, we read: ‘Now, this golden Person, who is seen within the sun, has a golden beard and golden hair, and is golden through and through, right to the finger-nail tips. His eyes are like the full-blown lotus. His name is High, (because) he has risen above all sins. Verily, he who knows thus rises above all sins. His singers are the Ṛc and the Sāman....^[1] So much with reference to the gods’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.6.6-1.6.8), ‘Now, with reference to the self’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.7.1), ‘Now, this person, who is seen within the eye’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.7.5) and so on.

Here, a doubt, arises, viz. whether this Person, mentioned in Scripture as abiding within the sun and the eye, is a particular individual soul, or the Supreme Lord? What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: An individual soul who has attained eminence. Why? Because the person within the sun and the person within the eye are declared by Scripture to be possessed of a form in the passages (respectively): ‘Having a golden beard, golden hair’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.6.6), ‘The form of this one is the very same as the form of that one’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.7.5); because a limit to the lordship of both is declared respectively by the texts:—‘He rules these worlds which are beyond that, as well as the desires of gods’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.6.8), ‘He rules these worlds which are under that, as well as the desires of men’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.7.6); because the dependence of both on something else is declared (respectively) by the texts: ‘Within the sun’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.6.6), ‘Within the eye’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.7.5); and because the Supreme Self is declared to be just the opposite by the texts ‘Without sound, without touch, without form’ (Kaṭha 3.15), ‘“On what, my reverend Sir, is it based?” “On its own greatness(Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.24.1), ‘This is the Lord of beings’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.22), etc.—

We reply: The Person, mentioned in Scripture as “within” the sun and the eye is the Highest Self alone. Why? “On account of the teaching of his qualities,” i.e. because of the “teaching”, in this text, of the qualities “of him”, viz. of the Highest Soul alone, such as, being free from sins in every way, being the remover of all the sins of His own devotees, and so on, as well as, being the soul of all and the rest, thus: ‘He, verily, is the Ṛc, the Sāman, the Uktha, the Yajus, He is Brahman’^[2] (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.7.5); because in accordance with the scriptural texts: ‘When the seer sees the golden-coloured person’ (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.3), ‘Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 3.8; Gītā 8.9), ‘That on which all these powers are based, O king, is another great form of Hari, different from the form of the world’, and so on, like His natural qualities of possessing true desires and the rest, His possessing a form too, involves no contradiction; and because the text: ‘Without sound, without touch, without colour’ (Kaṭha 3.15) is concerned with denying sound and the like belonging to the material world. Nor is Brahman depicted here as possessed of a limited lordship, since the text setting forth such a limit is concerned with an arrangement of presiding deities. Nor can Brahman be said to be dependent on something else, since He is the support of alḥ in accordance with the following scriptural and Smṛti texts, viz. ‘Entered within, the ruler of men’ (Taittirīya-āraṇyaka 3.11.1, 2^[3]), ‘The Inner Soul of all beings’ (Kaṭha 5.9, 10, 11; 5.12; Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.11; Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.1.4), ‘Who, abiding within the earth’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.3), ‘“And, I am situated within the hearts of all”’ (Gītā 15.15), ‘“I abide, supporting the entire universe with a part of mine’” (Gītā 10.42), and so on. Here, by the Vedie text,—which is omniscient, independent of.all proofs and authoritative by itself with regard to its own matter,—viz. ‘This golden person who is seen within the sun, having a golden beard’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.6.6) and so on, the body also of Brahman, the topic of discussion, suitable to Him, is mentioned, on the basis of direct perception alone, as evident from the statement: ‘is seen’. From this it is known that the Highest Self is to be meditated on by one who desires salvation as possessed of a body. And, meditation too, to be mentioned hereafter,^[4] is possible only if the Highest Self be possessed of a body. The multitude of scriptural and Smṛti texts, referring to the body of the Lord, is not quoted here for fear of prolixity.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

This is sūtra 20 in his commentary. Reading and interpretation same, quotes the same passage. In conclusion, he adds that although the Supreme Lord is really arūpa or formless, yet He may assume various māyāmaya-rūpas for favouring His devotees.^[5] That is, all these passages, teaching the worship of the Person within the sun and so on, refer to the qualified Brahman only, and not to the highest Brahman, which of course Nimbārka does not admit.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quotation incomplete—viz.:—‘His singers are the Ṛc and the Sāman, Therefore (they are called) the udgītha’ and so on. See footnote 1, p. 69.

[2]:

Ṛc is a sacred verse, which, is recited in praise of a deity; Sāman is a verse which is sung; Yajus is a sacred formula which is muttered; Uktha is a kind of recitation in sacrifices; Brahman is a sacred text or mantra, distinct from Ṛc, Sāman and Yajus. Monier-Williams, pp. 172, 225, 737.

[3]:

P. 181.

[4]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 3.3.

[5]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.1.20, p. 232; ‘Syāt parameśvarasyāpīcchā-vaśān māyāmayaṃ rūpaṃ sādhakānugrahārtham’.