Brahma-Sūtra 1.2.13

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.2.13 by Roma Bose:

“That which is within (the eye is Brahman), on account of fitting in.”

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

In the passage: ‘That person who is seen within the eye’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.15.1^[1]), the Person “within” the eye is the Highest Person alone, and not any one else. Why? Because the attributes of ‘being the self’, ‘being fearless‘being the uniter of all lovely things’, and so on,—mentioned in the passages: ‘“He is the self”, said he, “This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman,”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.15.1^[2]), ‘They call it the “uniter of lovely things”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.15.2),—“fit in” in the case of the Highest Person alone.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now, by showing that the text: ‘That Person who is seen within the eye’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.15.1) and so on refers to Brahman, the author removes the doubt, viz:—In the previous passage (viz. Kaṭha 3.1), the individual soul and the Supreme Soul may be understood, since the dual number is found used. But here, since the singular number is used, who (viz. the individual soul or the Supreme Soul) is to he understood?

We read under the Upakośala-vidyā^[3] in the Chandogya:—“‘That Person who is seen within, the eye, he is the soul”, said he, “This is the immortal, the fearless, that is Brahman. Hence, even if they pour clarified butter or water on it, it goes away to both sides’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.15.1) and so on. Here, a doubt arises as to whether the person, taught as abiding within the eye, is the reflected self (i.e. the image of a person reflected on the eye of another), or the individual soul, or the presiding deity of the sense-organ (viz. the eye), or the Supreme Soul. The prima facie view is as follows: In accordance with the statement ‘is seen’, he may be the reflected self, because the reflected self alone is well-known to be perceivable, while the individual soul and the rest are not perceivable. If it he said that here ‘seeing’ means scriptural insight (and not actual, physical perceiving),—then the individual soul may he that which is ‘within’ the eye, since it, as the perceiver of colour and the rest, is in proximity to the eye.^[3] Or, the presiding deity of the eye is denoted by the word ‘person’ in accordance with the scriptural passage: ‘Through his rays he is stationed herein’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 5.5.2), and because the all-pervasive Being cannot possibly abide within the eye.

With regard to it, we reply: “That which is within”, i.e. the being who is within the eye, is the Supreme Soul alone. Why? “On account of fitting in”, i.e. because the attributes of‘being the self’, ‘fearlessness and so on, “fit in” in the case of the Supreme Soul alone. Although ‘being the Self’ and the rest are not incompatible with the real nature of the individual soul, yet when the term ‘Brahman’ (in the text) can he understood in its primary sense, it is not proper to take it as implying some other sense. Moreover, ‘fearlessness too, is not appropriate in the case of any one, other than Brahman, as known also from the text: ‘Through fear of Him the wind blows, through fear of Him the sun rises, through fear of Him fire and Indra, and death as fifth, speed along’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.8.1); and further because the attributes of ‘being the uniter of all lovely things’ and the rest, mentioned in the sacred text: ‘They call this “the uniter of all lovely things”^[4], because all lovely things come together to him’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.15.2), ‘He is also “the leader to all blessing”^[5] because he leads to all blessings’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.15.3), ‘He also is “the leader to light”^[6], because he shines in all the worlds’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.15.4), “fit in” in the case of the Supreme Soul alone. ‘Saṃyadvāma’ implies one from whom the ‘vāmas’, i.e. the fruits of karmas ‘come together’, i.e. one who is the cause of the rise of all fruits of karmas. This very thing is stated in the above text thus:—‘Because’, i.e. since, ‘the lovely things’ ‘come together’, i.e. arise from ‘this’, i.e. the Person within the eye, the cause. In the text ‘He is also the ‘vāmanī’, the ‘vāmanī’ implies one who ‘leads’, i.e. causes people, to attain the ‘vāmas’ or auspicious objects. This very thing is stated in the passage: ‘Because he leads to all blessings’. In the text ‘He also is the bhāmanī’, the ‘bhāmanī’ implies one who leads to the ‘bhāmas’, i.e. one who manifests all objects. This very thing is stated in the text: ‘Because he shines in all the worlds’,—this is the meaning of the text.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[2]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Bhāskara.

[3]:

I.e. it is the soul which really perceives colour, etc. and not the eye itself, but the soul perceives them through the eye, and is as such in close proximity to the eye. Hence, as the soul is situated very near to the eye, it is called the person within the eye.

[4]:

Saṃyadvāma.

[5]:

Vāmanī.

[6]:

Bhāmanī.