Brahma-Sūtra 1.2.9

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.2.9 by Roma Bose:

“The eater (is Brahman), oh account of the comprehension (or taking, i.e. devouring) of the movable and the immovable.”

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

In the text: ‘He to whom both the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya are the food and death the condiment, who thus knows where He is?’ (Kaṭha 2.25^[1]), the eater is the Lord, the Highest Person, “on account of the comprehension (or taking, i.e. devouring)”^[2] of the food which has death for its condiment, i.e. of the Universe, consisting of the movable and the immovable, implied by the terms ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and ‘Kṣatriya’.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

In, the preceding section, after having shown that the text: ‘All this, verily, is Brahman’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1) and so on refers to Brahman, the author has shown also the absence of any experience of pleasure and pain due to karma on the part of Brahman. Now, by showing that the text: ‘He, of whom the Brāhmaṇa’ (Kaṭha 2.25) and so on refers to Him, he removes the suspicion that, as before, He cannot be an eater of the movable and the immovable.^[3]

In the Kaṭha-vallī it is recorded: ‘He, to whom both the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya are the food and death the condiment, who thus knows where He is?’ (Kaṭha 2.25). Here by the word ‘food’ edible objects are understood, and by the words ‘of whom’, indicating connection, an eater is understood. A doubt arises, viz. whether the eater here is fire, or the individual soul, or the Supreme Soul, since here all the three have been referred to before. What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: First, let fire be the eater here, because it is well-known to have the power of burning the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya; and because the scriptural text:—‘Fire is the eater of food’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.4.6) declares so. Or, let the individual soul be the eater, because it is well-known to be an enjoyer; because the scriptural text: ‘Of the two, the one tastes sweet berry’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.6; Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.1) declares so; and, finally, because in the preceding section, (viz. Brahma-sūtra 1.2.8) it alone has been established to be an enjoyer. In accordance with the negative text: ‘Without eating’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.6; Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.1), as well as on the ground of the negation of experience in the preceding section (viz. Brahma-sūtra 1.2.8), the Highest Self cannot be understood as the eater here,—

We reply: Here the eater can possibly be the Highest Self alone. Whence is this known? “On account of the comprehension (or taking, i.e. devouring^[4]) of the movable and the immovable,” i.e. because here the movable and the immovable are understood to be the food. If it be objected that the words ‘movable’ and ‘immovable’ are not found here,—(we reply:) It may be so, (yet that does not falsify our view), because by the terms ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and ‘Kṣatriya’, the movable and the immovable are understood metaphorically; and because there being a natural connection between death and the movable and the immovable, that food which has death for its condiment, viz. the movable and the immovable, is understood here. Hence the eater is the Highest Self, the destroyer of the Universe,—this is the resulting meaning, for neither fire, nor the individual soul, can possibly be the eater of the entire world. The text: ‘Without eating’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.6; Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.1) denies any experience of the fruits of works on the part of the Lord.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 1.2.8, pp. 327 et seqPart 4.

[2]:

It is not clear what Nimbārka means exactly by the term ‘grahaṇa’ here. It may mean appropriately both ‘understanding’ and ‘taking or devouring’. Thus, Brahman is the eater, because the movable and the immovable are understood as the food here; or because, the movable and the immovable are devoured as the food here.

The same remarks apply to Śrīnivāsa‘s interpretation.

[3]:

I.e. it may be thought that since Brahman is not an enjoyer, as shown above, He cannot be an eater too.

[4]:

See footnote (2), previous page.