Brahma-Sūtra 1.2.21

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.2.21 by Roma Bose:

“And the embodied one (is not the inner controller), because both also depict it as different.”

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

“And” the individual soul is not the inner controller, because “both” the Kaṇvas, ‘as well as’ the Mādhyandinas depict “it” “as different” from the inner controller, respectively in the passages: ‘He who abiding in intelligence’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.22^[1]), ‘He who abiding in the soul’ (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.6.7.30^[2]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection: Let then the individual soul, and not pradhāna, be denoted by the term “inner controller”, since the qualities of being a seer and the rest are appropriate on the soul’s part—the author replies here:

The word ‘not’ is to be supplied here from the preceding aphorism. And the “embodied one”, i.e. the soul which has entered into a body, its abode for enjoying the fruits of its own actions, is not denoted by the term “inner controller”, on account of the mention of qualities not belonging to it, viz. ‘being the soul of all’, ‘being the governor of all’, ‘being the seer of all’ and so on; ‘for both’ the Kaṇvas, ‘as well as’ the Mādhyandinas “depict” ‘this’, i.e. the embodied one, “as different” from the inner controller, since the embodied self is an abode like the earth and the rest, and is an object to be governed.^[3] The Kaṇvas read: ‘He who abiding within intelligence’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.22), the Mādhyandinas read: ‘Whom the soul does not know, of whom the soul is the body, who controls the soul from within—He is your soul, the inner controller, immortal’ (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.5.7.30). There being the denial of any other seer in the passage: ‘There is no seer other than Him’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.23), the seer of everything is the Highest Person alone, the sense being that none other than the Lord is the seer of everything. The individual soul, known from the text: ‘The person alone is a seer, a hearer’, is the seer of only a few things in  contrast to Brahman, (the seer of everything),—such is the distinction (between Brahman, and the soul, though both are seers). Here too, the difference of nature between the individual soul and Brahman is established by Scripture and aphorism. This difference should not be understood in the sense the logicians understand it to exist between the individual soul and the Lord, (i.e. as absolute difference), hut (it implies that the individual soul) is a part of Brahman who is One alone, as mentioned in the text: ‘Brahman,^[4] one, without a second’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.2.1), without an equal or a superior, the governor, possessed of infinite powers and an ocean of auspicious qualities. Although here in the introductory chapter, the individual soul, possessed of the stated marks, is said to be different from the Lord, because of its own peculiar qualities, mentioned in the Veda, viz. ‘being an object to be controlled’ and so on,—yet just as an attribute is different from its substratum (yet non-different from it), so it is non-different from its own controller, as it is incapable of having an independent existence or activity, and as it does not contradict the attributes, such as, ‘being one’, ‘being without a second’ and so on, belonging to the Whole of which it is a part.^[5] Thus, the qualities of‘being subject to bondage and release’, ‘having little knowledge’ and the rest, pertain to the part, (viz. the individual soul); while the qualities of‘being over-free’, ‘being omniscient’, ‘being unenveloped (by nescience)’, ‘being the object to he approached by the freed’ and the rest, are peculiar to Brahman. Hence, no fault of an intermixture of qualities arises here. Similarly, ‘materiality’, ‘mutability’ and the like are the peculiar qualities of the non-sentient, a power of Brahman; while ‘omnipotence’, ‘omniscience’ and the rest, are peculiar to Brahman, the possessor of the power. Although prakṛti is different from Brahman as a power, yet it is non-different from Brahman, as a power has no separate activity, etc. Thus, a relation of difference-non-difference between the three realities is the view of the followers of the Upaniṣads (i.e. Vedāntins).

Here ends the section entitled ‘The inner controller’ (5).

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

Reading different, viz. omits ‘śārīraśca’ in the beginning, interpretation same.^[6]

Thus, according to Nimbārka, Śaṅkara, Bhāskara and Baladeva:—

‘Na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt.’ (One sūtra.)
‘Śārīraścobhaye’pi hi bhedenainam adhīyate.’ (One sūtra.)

According to Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:—

‘Na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt śārīraś ca.’ (One sūtra.)
‘Ubhaye’pi hi bhedenainam adhīyate.’ (One sūtra.)

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and Bhāskara; Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary)

[2]:

P. 1074, line 18. Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara; Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary)

[3]:

I.e. the individual soul is the abode, while the inner controller is one who abides therein, just as He abides within the earth and the rest. Again, the individual soul is the object governed, the inner controller, the governor. Hence the two are different.

[4]:

The word ‘Brahman’ not included in the original text.

[5]:

I.e. if the individual soul were different from Brahman, then it would have been a second principle besides Brahman and would have thereby contradicted. His Oneness. But as it does not do so, it must be non-different from Him.

[6]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 1.2.22, p. 260, Part I.
Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 1.2.22, p. 374, Part 1.