Brahma-Sūtra 1.2.11

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.2.11 by Roma Bose:

“The souls entered into the cave (are the individual soul and the Supreme Soul), because that is seen.”

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

In the text: ‘There are two, drinking of righteousness in the world of good deeds, entered into the cave’ (Kaṭha 3.1^[1]), the two souls, entered into the cave, should be known to be two sentient beings, viz. the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. Why? “Because that is seen”, i.e. because it is found that this section designates the entering of these two alone,—of the Supreme Soul in the passage: ‘Him, who is difficult to see, who has entered into the hidden, who is hidden in the cave’ (Kaṭha 2.12^[2]); and of the individual soul in the passage: ‘She, who arises with the vital-breath, who is Aditi, who is made of the deities, who, entering into the cave, abides therein, who was manifested through the elements’ (Kaṭha 4.7^[3]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been pointed out above that the Supreme Soul, the topic of discussion and the object to be meditated on, is the eater of the movable and the immovable, and that He is difficult to be known, as declared by the text: ‘Who thus knows’ (Kaṭha 2.25). Now, by teaching the following attributes of the Lord—viz. ‘being easily attainable’; ‘being easily knowable’ and the rest—which result from His close association (with the individual soul^[4]),—to one who desires for salvation, who desires to attain His nature, wṇṭo desires to know’ Him, and who is submerged in the pit of mundane existence consisting of the movable and the immovable, the author is showing that the text: ‘Righteousness’ (Kaṭha 3.1) and so on refers to the Lord.

Immediately after the above-quoted text, we find the following in the Kaṭha-vallī: ‘There are two, drinking of righteousness in the world of good deeds, entered into the cave, in the highest upper region. Those who know Brahman speak of them as “light” and “shade”, as well as those who maintain the five sacred fires,^[5] and those too who thrice kindle the Naciketas fire’^[6] (Kaṭha 3.1). Here a doubt arises as to whether here buddhi and the individual soul are designated as entered into the cave, or the individual soul and the Supreme Soul? What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: Buddhi and the individual soul,—because in accordance with the statement: ‘Entered into the cave’ (Kaṭha 3.1), entering into a cave is impossible on the part of the Supreme Soul who is all-pervasive; because it is impossible for the Supreme Being who has all His desires fulfilled to be the enjoyer of the fruits of works, as stated in the passage: ‘Drinking of righteousness’ (Kaṭha 3.1); because any connection with the ‘world of good deeds’,—i.e. with the world where one enjoys the fruits of the works done by one’s self, viz. the body generated by works,—is impossible on His part; and, finally, because a question is found, seeking to know the individual soul as different from buddhi, viz. “‘There is this doubt when a man is dead: some saying, ‘He is’, others, ‘He is not’. This I should know, as taught by you”’ (Kaṭha 1.20^[7]). Hence, these two alone (viz. buddhi and individual soul) are established by this text,—

We reply: The souls entered into the cave, viz. the heart, are two sentient beings alone. If it be objected: The entering of the individual soul stands to reason, since it is atomic; but entering into a cave is not appropriate on the part of the Supreme Soul who is all-pervasive, and hence the above objection remains in force,—(we reply:) No. “Because that is seen.” That is, because in this very Upaniṣad, the text: ‘The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, abides within the soul, the Lord of the past and the future’ (Kaṭha 4.12) enjoins the Supreme Soul to be looked upon as abiding within the caves (i.e. hearts) of His sincere devotees in accordance with their wishes, though He Himself is all-pervading; because this is found in the texts: ‘Hidden in the cave, dwelling in the abyss’ (Kaṭha 2.12), ‘He who knows him, hidden in the cave’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1.1); and, lastly, because in the text: ‘She, who arises with the vital-breath, who is Aditi, who is made of the deities, who, entering into the cave abides therein, who was manifested through the elements’ (Kaṭha 4.7), the individual soul is designated as entering into the cave. Moreover, in the text: ‘Drinking of righteousness’ (Kaṭha 3.1), one being ascertained to be a sentient being as the enjoyer of the fruits of works, the other too must be understood to be a sentient being alone, because we find that in ordinary life whenever a number is mentioned, beings of the same class are meant. When, e.g. it is said ‘Look out for a second for this cow’, people look out for a cow only, and not for a horse or an ass. This is established in the Mahā-bhāṣya.

To the objection, viz. that a question is found which seeks to know the individual soul as different from buddhi,—(we reply:) the reply to this question is something else, and not this text. It cannot be said also that there is anything inconsistent in the ‘drinking of righteousness’ (Kaṭha 3.1), since the statement: ‘Drinking of righteousness’ (Kaṭha 3.1) is justifiable, just like the statement: ‘Men with umbrellas are going’;^[8] since it is possible to say that while the individual soul drinks, the other (viz. the Lord) causes it to drink, and is as such the causative agent;^[9] and since it is well-known everywhere that the Supreme Lord first experiences the fruits of the works which are performed by one who is whole-heartedly devoted to Him, and are entrusted to Him. Hereby, it is explained also how the Supreme Being can abide in a body generated by works. The sense is that just as ‘shade’ can be removed by ‘light’ and not ‘light’ by ‘shade’, so the ‘light’ and the ‘shade’ (in the above text) are none but Brahman and the individual soul, the independent and the dependent.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

Interpretation of the phrase ‘tad-darśanāt’ different, viz.: ‘Because it is seen (that numerals denote beings of the same nature)’.^[10]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha, and Bhāskara.

[2]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha, and Bhāskara.

[3]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja and Bhāskara.

[4]:

I.e. the Lord abides with the individual soul in the same place, viz. the heart, and as such is easily knowable and attainable by it.

[5]:

Viz. Anvāhārya-pacana or Dakṣiṇa, Gārhapatya, Āhavanīya, Sabhya, and Āvasathya. Monier-Williams, p. 577, Col. 3.

[6]:

Vide Monier-Williams, p. 458, Col. 2.

[7]:

The sense is: Naciketā wants to know here what happens to the soul after death, i.e. he wants to know the self as distinct from the body, buddhi and so on. Hence, in reply, Yama must speak of the individual soul and buddhi, and as such the passage in question must deal with these two alone.

[8]:

That is, referring to a crowd of hurrying people, we often say: ‘Men with umbrellas are going’, though really only some of them are carrying umbrellas, and not all. Similarly, here too, when it is said: ‘The two thinking’, etc. what is really meant is that only one (viz. the individual soul) is drinking, and not the other (viz. Brahman).

[9]:

That is, Brahman is not really an agent or drinker here, but only instigates the other to drink, He is said to be drinking in this sense alone.

[10]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.2.12, p. 272, Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 1.2.12, p. 41.