Brahma-Sūtra 1.2.6

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.2.6 by Roma Bose:

“And on account of Smṛti.”

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

“And on account of the Smṛti” text:—‘The Lord abides, O Arjuna! in the heart-region of all beings’ (Gītā 18.61^[1]), there is a difference between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

‘“He who sees me everywhere, and sees everything in me, of him I will never lose hold, and he shall never lose hold of me”’ (Gītā 6.30), ‘“He who, established in unity, worships me as abiding within all beings, that ascetic abides in me, under whatever circumstances he may live’” (Gītā 6.31), ‘“There is nothing higher than me, O Dhanañjaya! All this is strung on me, like gems on a string”’ (Gītā 7.7), ‘“And I abide within the heart of all, and from me memory, knowledge and their absence’” (Gītā 15.15), ‘“The Lord abides, O Arjuna! in the heart-region of all, causing all beings to revolve by His mysterious power, as if mounted on a machine’” (Gītā 18.61),

‘“Because I excel the perishable and am superior even to the imperishable, I am celebrated in the world, and in the Veda as the Highest Person”’ (Gītā 15.18). The following scriptural texts too are referred to by the term “and” (in the sūtra):^[2] ‘The two unborn ones, the knower and the non-knower, the Lord and the non-Lord’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.9), ‘The Lord of matter and souls, the ruler of the attributes’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.16), ‘The eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.13; Kaṭha 5.13) and so on. From such Smṛti and scriptural texts, it is to be known that there is a difference between the individual soul and Brahman. Thus, in this section, the difference between, the individual soul and the Supreme Soul is indicated by the reverend author of the aphorisms in four aphorisms;^[3] and this view is most reasonable, since it is established by both Smṛti and Scripture. The Highest Self is ever-free, omniscient, independent, all-pervading without an equal or a superior, the soul of all and the controller of all. The individual soul, on the other hand, though of the nature of eternal knowledge, has, as is well-known, its attribute of knowledge enveloped by the beginningless māyā, is subject to bondage and release, possessed of little knowledge, a part of Brahman, but through its aversion to the Lord, revolves through many births owing to the works done by itself. Non-difference also, established by the scriptural texts like: ‘He is the self, thou art that’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.9.4, 6.10.3, etc.), ‘All this, verily, is Brahman’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1), ‘This soul is Brahman’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.5) and so on, is most reasonable. Thus, the reverend author of the aphorisms will speak about the nature of difference and nondifference, as held by himself, under the aphorism: ‘A part, on account of the designation of variety’ (Brahma-sūtra 2.3.42) and so on. We shall speak of it in detail in the same place.^[4]

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Reading and interpretation same. But in conclusion, he adds his own view, viz. that this difference between the individual soul and Brahman is not real, but due to limiting adjuncts only.^[5]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

Reading same, interpretation different, viz. ‘On account of Smṛti’ (viz. Gītā 11.9) Nārāyaṇa is the worshipper—i.e. different from Śiva.^[6]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Baladeva.

[2]:

Note the different interpretations of the word ‘Ca’ in the sūtra, as given by Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa. According to the former, it simply means ‘also’, while according to the latter, ‘on account of scriptural texts’.

[3]:

Viz. Brahma-sūtra 1.2.3-6.

[4]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 2.3.42.

[5]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.2.7, p. 265.

[6]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 1.2.7, pp. 325-26, Part 4.