Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.32

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.1.32 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that on account of the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath, (Brahman is) not (meant), (we reply:) no, on account of the threefoldness of meditation, on account of being referred to (elsewhere), on account of (its) suitability here.”

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

If it be objected: On. account of the characteristic marks of the individual soul, mentioned in the passages:—‘Let none desire to enquire into speech, but let him desire to know the speaker’ (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 3.8^[1]), ‘I slew the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭṛ’ (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 3.1^[2]); as well as on account of the characteristic marks of the chief vital-breath, mentioned in the passage—‘The vital-breath alone is the intelligent self that taking hold of the body makes it stand up’ (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 3.3^[3]), Brahman is not referred to here,—

(We reply:) No, “because of the threefoldness of the meditation” on Brahman, in accordance with the different grades of meditating devotees, viz. (meditation on Brahman) as the Inner Controller of the group of individual souls, as the Inner Controller of the non-sentient objects, and as different from them both; “because it is referred to” (elsewhere); “because it is suitable here” also.

Here ends the first quarter of the first chapter in the Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha, an interpretation of the Śārīraka-mīmāṃsā-texts, and composed by the reverend Nimbārka.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: Brahman cannot be denoted here by the words ‘vital-breath’ and the rest. Why? “On account of the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath.” First, the characteristic marks of the individual soul are stated in the passages: ‘Let none desire to enquire after speech, but let him desire to know the speaker’ (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 3.8), ‘“I delivered the Arunmukhas, the ascetics, to the wolves’” (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 3.1) and so on; and the characteristic marks of the chief vital-breath are stated in, the passage: ‘Now, verily, the vital-breath alone is the intelligent soul that taking hold of this body makes it stand up’ (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 3.1). Hence it is not possible that Brahman is referred to here,—

(We, reply:) “No.” Why? “On account of the threefoldness of meditation, on account of being referred (elsewhere), on account of (its) suitability here.” That is, the designation of Brahman by such and such terms (viz. Indra and the vital-breath) is for the sake of teaching the threefoldness of meditation, just as elsewhere three kinds of meditation on Brahman are referred to. There (viz. in the Taittirīya-upaniṣad) Brahman is recommended to be meditated on in His own nature in the passages: ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1), ‘Brahman is bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 3.6); and to be meditated on as the inner soul of the sentient and the non-sentient, as well as the soul of all in the passages: ‘Having created that, he entered into that very thing. Having entered it, He became real and that, defined and undefined, based and non-based, knowledge and non-knowledge’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.6). In the same manner “on account of its suitability”, i.e. on account of the suitability of such a threefoldness, “here”, i.e. in the Pratardanavidyā as well, there is no divergence among the texts, the whole group of texts referring to one and the same Brahman. This should be understood here: If a text be ascertained from the introduction and the rest to be referring to Brahman, then if there be marks of anything else therein, those, too, should be referred to Brahman, who is the inner controller of that thing, who possesses it as His power, and who is the object to be meditated on. Hence, it is established that the object indicated by the words ‘Indra’, ‘vital-breath’ and the rest is the Highest Self.

Here ends the section entitled ‘Indra and the vital-breath’ (11).

Here ends the first section of the first chapter in the Vedānta-kaustubha, a commentary on the Śārīraka-mīmāṃsā, and composed by the reverend teacher Śrīnivāsa, dwelling under the lotus-feet of the reverend Nimbārka, the founder and teacher of the sect of the reverend Sanatkumāra.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. Reading same. He gives two alternative explanations of the second part of the sūtra, viz. the reply to the objection, thus:—

(1) ‘If it be objected...., (then, we reply:)—On account of the threefoldness of meditation, (i.e. your interpretation would involve the assumption of devout meditation of three kinds, viz. on the individual soul, on the chief vital-breath and on Brahman, but one and the same section cannot teach three different kinds of things). (Moreover, the word “vital-breath” must denote Brahman here,) on account of (that meaning) being accepted (elsewhere), on account of connection here (i.e. in the passage itself characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned). (Hence the conclusion is that Brahman is the topic of the whole chapter.)’ This interpretation is different from Nimbārka’s interpretation.

Or, ‘If it be objected...., (then, we reply:) (the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital-breath are not out of place in a chapter which deals with Brahman) on account of the threefoldness of meditation (i.e. because this chapter aims simply at advocating thereby the three ways of meditating on Brahman, viz. under the aspect of the prāṇa, under the aspect of prajñā, and in itself, according as Brahman is viewed either with reference to the two limiting adjuncts, or in itself); because (in other passages also we find that meditation on Brahman is) made dependant (on Brahman being qualified by limiting adjuncts—cf. Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.2); because (the hypothesis that Brahman is meditated on under three aspects) is perfectly consistent here (i.e. in the prāṇa chapter^[4]). This interpretation too does not tally with Nimbārka’s interpretation, for Nimbārka does not hold that the sentient and the non-sentient—under the aspects of which Brahman is meditated on—are limiting adjuncts of Brahman.

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

Reading and interpretation same. According to Rāmānuja, the three kinds of meditation are:—(1) Meditation on Brahman in His own nature as the cause of the world, (2) meditation on Brahman as having the totality of the enjoying souls as His body (i.e. as the inner soul of the sentient), and (3) meditation on Brahman as having the objects and means of enjoyment for His body (i.e. as the inner soul of the non-sentient).^[5]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. Reading different—viz. omits the portion: ‘Āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt’. Two alternative interpretations given, the first (the author’s own view) exactly like Śaṅkara’s first explanation; the second (the view of others: ‘apare tu’, etc.) like Nimbārka’s explanation.^[6]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

Reading and interpretation same. He points out, exactly after Rāmānuja, that the three kinds of meditations on the Lord are—svarūpeṇa, bhoktṛ-śarīreṇa and bhogya-rūpeṇa.^[7]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 31 in Baladeva. His interpretation is like Śaṅkara’s first interpretation.^[8]

Resume

The first quarter of the first chapter contains:—

(1) 32 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Nimbārka:
(2) 31 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Śaṅkara;
(3) 32 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Rāmānuja;
(4) 31 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Bhāskara;
(5) 32 sūtras and 12 adhikaraṇas, according to Śrīkaṇṭha;
(6) 31 sūtras and 11 adhikaraṇas, according to Baladeva.

Śaṅkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva omit sūtra 9 in Nimbārka’s commentary.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Baladeva.

[2]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha, Bhāskara and Baladeva.

[3]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Baladeva.

[4]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.1.31. pp. 255ff.

[5]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 1.1.32, p. 224, vol. 1.:—‘Nikhila-kāraṇa-bhūtasya Brahmaṇaḥ svarūpeṇānusandhānam, bhoktṛ-varga-śarīrakatvānusandhānam, bhogya-bhogopa-karaṇa-śarīrakatvānusandhānañ ceti trividham anusandhānam upadeṣṭum ityarthaḥ’

[6]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 1.1.31, pp. 35-36.

[7]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 1.1.32, pp. 291-92, Part 3.

[8]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 1.1.31.