Brahma-Sūtra 1.2.20

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.2.20 by Roma Bose:

“And (the inner controller is) not that which is designated in the smṛti, on account of the mention of qualities not belonging to it.”

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

And, pradhāna is not denoted by the term “inner controller”, “on account of the mention” of the qualities of a sentient being, viz. ‘being the controller of all’, ‘being the seer of all’ and so on.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Although pradhāna has already been set aside under the aphorism: ‘Because (he) sees, not, it is non-scriptural’ (Brahma-sūtra 1.1.5), yet it is being set aside once more apprehending the possibility of the attributes of invisibility the rest (belonging to the inner controller alone) on its part.^[1]

“That which is designated in the Smṛti”, i.e. pradhana established by the Śāṃkhya Smṛti, is not denoted by the term “inner controller”. Why? “On account of the mention of qualities not belonging to it”,—“the qualities not belonging to it” mean the qualities which belong to a sentient being,—“on account of the mention”, i.e. declaration, of such qualities, in the concluding text: ‘He is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unknown knower’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.23). On account of the designation of the qualities of a sentient being, viz. ‘being the soul of all’, ‘being the governor of all’ and so on, pradhāna cannot be accepted here.

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

Reading different, viz. add ‘śārīraśca’, and extends the same argument to the case of the individual soul as well.^[2]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

That is, pradhāna is invisible, and the inner controller too is said to be invisible, etc. (Bṛh. 3.7.23). Hence it might be thought that pradhāna is the inner controller. This is being refuted here.

[2]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 1.2.20, p. 259, Part I. Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 1.2.20, p. 372, Part 4.