Brahma-Sūtra 1.2.3

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.2.3 by Roma Bose:

“But on account of inappropriateness, not the embodied (soul).”

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

He who is possessed of the attributes of consisting of mind and the rest is the Supreme Being alone, and not the individual soul, because (the attributes like)⁴ consisting of mind’, ‘having true resolves’ and so on, are “inappropriate” on its part.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Brahman alone is to be understood as consisting of mind, for the purpose of meditation, and not “the embodied”, i.e. the individual soul, possessing a body. Why? Because the attributes of ‘having true resolves’ and the like are “inappropriate” on the part of the individual soul. Moreover, the attributes of ‘consisting of mind’ and the rest too, are inappropriate on the part of the individual soul. Thus, the text says: ‘Let him form a determination’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1). Of what kind is he? ‘Consisting of mind’, again, ‘having the vital-breath for his body These adjectives are not appropriate on the part of the individual soul, because no such implication is involved here, nor any purpose. But all these are appropriate on the part of the Highest self. Thus, when it is said: Let the worshipper, whether he desires for salvation, or for any particular fruit, ‘form a determination’, i.e. perform meditation or action, in a ‘calm’ spirit, the question arises: In reference to whom is he to perform meditation or action? and in reply, the Highest Person, the soul of all, and indicated above in the passage: ‘All this, verily, is Brahman’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1), is pointed out as the object to be meditated on. And, this text: ‘Consisting of mind, having the vital-breath for the body’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.2) and so on refers to Brahman. Hence the attributes of ‘consisting of mind’ and the rest are not appropriate on the part of the individual soul.

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

Beading same, interpretation different. According to Śrīkaṇṭha, a new adhikaraṇa begins with this sūtra (sūtras 3-8), concerned with the question whether a passage in the Mahā-nārāyaṇa-upaniṣad (Māhānār. 11.3) refers to Nārāyaṇa or to Śiva. Thus:—‘(The passage refers to Śiva, and not (to) the embodied (i.e. Nārāyaṇa), because (the attributes of being the Lord of the universe and the rest) are not appropriate (on the part of Nārāyaṇa)’.^[1]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 1.1.3, pp. 318 et seq., Part 4.