Brahma-Sūtra 1.3.8

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.3.8 by Roma Bose:

“The plenty (is the lord), because of the teaching (of it) as above serenity (viz. the vital-breath).”

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

The Plenty, taught by the highest teacher, the venerable Sanatkumāra, to our preceptor, the reverend Nārada, in the passage: ‘But the Plenty alone should be enquired after’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.22.1^[1]), is not the vital-breath, but the Highest Person. Why? “Because of the teaching” of the Plenty as “above” the vital-breath.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now, the reverend author of the aphorisms is showing that the text: ‘But the Plenty alone should be enquired after’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.22.1) and so on, refers to Brahman.

The following is recorded by the Chandogas: ‘“It has been heard by me from men. like you that one who knows the soul crosses over sorrow. I am such a sorrowing one, reverend sir! Cause me, sir, to cross over the sorrow”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.1.3), thus asked by Nārada, his preceptor, the reverend Sanatkumāra, the teacher of the doctrine of salvation, taught: ‘The name is Brahman’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.1.5). Again, asked thus: ‘“Is there, sir, more than name”?’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.1.5), he taught: ‘“Speech, verily, is more than, name”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.2.1). In this way, fifteen objects, beginning with name and ending with the vital-breath, were taught.^[2] After having taught the vital-breath, he, without being asked any further question, taught the following: ‘“But he, verily, speaks superiorly who speaks superiorly through truth”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.16.1), ‘“But the Plenty alone should be enquired after”. “I enquire, sir, after the Plenty.” “Where one does not see another, does not hear another, does not know another, that is the Plenty. But where one sees another, hears another, knows another, that is the small’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.23.1-24.1). Here the term ‘plenty’ (bhūman) denotes ‘muchness’. It is derived in the following manner: The suffix ‘imanic’ is added to the word ‘bahu’ (much) in the sense of ‘the nature thereof’^[3], in accordance with the rule: ‘The (suffix) “imanic” is optionally added to the words “pṛthu” and the rest’ (Pāṇini-sūtra 5.1.122; Siddhānta-kaumudī 1784^[4]) (in order to indicate the sense ‘the nature thereof’.—Pāṇini-sūtra 5.1.119; Siddhānta-kaumudī 1781). Then the root (viz. bahu) and the suffix (viz. imanic) undergo a change in accordance with the rule: ‘After “bahu”, the first letters of “iman” and “iyas” affixes are elided, and “bahu” is replaced by the word “bhū”’ (Pāṇini-sūtra 6.4.154, 158; Siddhānta-kaumudī 2017^[5]). Here ‘muchness’ means ‘immensity’ (i.e. quantitative greatness), and not numerosity (i.e. numerical greatness), because just as the term ‘bahu’ denotes number, as in the examples: ‘In expressing numerosity the plural case affix is used’ (Pāṇini-sūtra 1.4.21; Siddhānta-kaumudī 187^[6]), ‘Many, purified by the penance of knowledge’ (Bhagavad-gītā 4.10), ‘After many births’ (Bhagavad-gītā 7.19) and so on, so it is seen to be applied in the sense of ‘immensity’ also, in contrast to smallness, as in the example: ‘He who renders service, be it great or small, to one who has heard Scripture’, Here, too, the term ‘plenty’ being used in contrast to smallness in the passage: ‘There is no pleasure in the small’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.23.1), its meaning is nothing but ‘immensity’. Thus, there is no pleasure in the small, but the Plenty alone is pleasure. Hence: ‘The Plenty alone is to be enquired into’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.23.1). That is, the Plenty, or the Supreme Soul alone, who is of the form of pleasure characterized by unsurpassed greatness, should be enquired after by one desiring salvation and wishing to attain pleasure characterized by unsurpassed greatness. When the reverend Sanatkumāra said this, the reverend Nārada said: I enquire, sir, after the Plenty”’

(Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.23.1). That is, ‘Sir’, meaning, O reverend teacher! I desire to know the Plenty alone in particular. Therefore, Sanatkumāra told him the characteristic marks of the Plenty by means of a positive (indicating what it is) and a negative (indicating what it is not) proposition, thus ‘where’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.24.1) and so on,—this is the sense of the text.

Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether the Plenty is the vital-breath or the Supreme Soul. The vital-breath, holds the prima facie view, because in the previous passage: ‘The vital-breath is more than hope’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.15.1), the vital-breath alone is indicated, and because after the teaching about the vital-breath, there are no further question and answer (as there were in the previous cases), viz: ‘“Is there, sir, more than name”?’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.1.5), ‘“Speech, verily, is more than name’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.2.1). By the term ‘vital-breath’, the individual soul, endowed with the vital-breath, is to be understood, and not merely a kind of air,—because, from the passage: ‘The vital-breath is the father, the vital-breath the mother’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.15.1), the vital-breath is known to be a sentient being; and because in the introductory text, viz: ‘One who knows the soul crosses over sorrow’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.1.3), as well as in the concluding text: ‘To the soul alone belongs all this’^[7] (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.25.2), the term ‘soul’ is found employed. The passage: ‘Where one does not see another’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.24.1) and so on, too, fittingly applies to the individual soul, because all its activities like seeing and the rest cease during its state of deep sleep; and further, because all its practical activities like external perceptions and the rest cease when its own real nature, different from the body, the sense-organs, buddhi and the rest, is known. Hereby, it should be known that texts like: ‘Verily, the Plenty is pleasure’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.23.1), ‘Verily, the vital-breath is immortal’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.6.3) and so on, are all to be explained as referring to the individual soul, possessing the vital-breath.

With regard to it, we reply: The Plenty is the Supreme Soul alone and not the individual soul, possessing the vital-breath. Why? “Because of the teaching (of it) as above serenity.” “Serenity” means one in whom there is complete serenity, i.e, the individual soul, celebrated in the Scriptural text: ‘This serenity, having arisen from this body, having attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.3.4) and so on. (The above phrase means: because of the teaching of it as) “above” that which is denoted by the term: “vital-breath”. In the text: ‘But he speaks superiorly who speaks through truth’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.26.1) from the term ‘but’, the difference between the subsequent teaching about the Plenty and the prior one about the vital-breath is known. The sense is that since the teaching about the Plenty is different from the teaching about the vital-breath, the meaning of the word “plenty” is different from the meaning of the term “vital-breath”.

(An alternative explanation of the sūtra.) Or, else, (the phrase means:) because of the teaching of the worshipper of truth as higher than the worshipper of the vital-breath, in the passage: ‘But he, verily, speaks superiorly’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.16.1); i.e. owing to a difference between the worshippers, there is a difference between the objects to be worshipped as well. The sense is this: If it be objected: In accordance with your statement, viz. that the Plenty is that alone, which is denoted by the term truth, demarcated as higher than the individual soul,—just as each of the fifteen objects, beginning with name and ending with speech, is taught as successively higher by the reverend Sanatkumāra, asked by the reverend Nārada,—how do you know that truth is taught as something higher,—(we reply:) Having stated that a knower of the vital-breath is a superior speaker in the passage: ‘Verily, by seeing this, by thinking this, by knowing this, one becomes a superior speaker’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.15.4), and having distinguished the worshipper of truth from the worshipper of the vital-breath by the term ‘but’ in the passage: ‘But he, verily, speaks superiorly, who speaks superiorly through truth’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.16.1), Scripture teaches truth, the cause of being a superior speaker in this case (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.16.1), as higher than the vital-breath, the cause of being a superior speaker in the previous case (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.15.4). The instrumental case ‘through truth’ (satyena) follows the rule: ‘The third case-ending is added to a word denoting a mark or an attribute which indicates the existence of a particular state or condition’ (Pāṇini-sūtra 2.3.21; Siddhānta-kaumudī 566^[8]). The clause ‘who speaks’, etc. means: who speaks superiorly through truth which figuratively implies the Supreme Brahman, the object to be worshipped. The word ‘truth’ is well known to be denoting Brahman, as in the passages: ‘Verily, the name of this Brahman is truth’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.3.4), ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1) and so on. ‘Being a superior speaker’ means being the speaker of the supremacy of one’s own object of worship, and this amounts to declaring the unsurpassedness of the Deity to be worshipped. The suffix ‘śatṛ’ in ‘by seeing this’ and the rest follows the rule: ‘The present participle is used to denote the manner or the cause of an action’ (Pāṇini-sūtra 3.2.126; Siddhānta-kaumudī 3103^[9]). That is, the direct vision of the Deity to be worshipped is the cause of being a superior speaker. The sense is that it becomes possible for one to be such a superior speaker only through the grace of the Deity worshipped by him, and apprehended through direct vision. Moreover, the very permission to speak the truth, giving up being a superior speaker through merely the vital-breath, asked for in the passage: ‘“May I, sir, speak superiorly through truth’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.16.1), indicates the termination of the section of the vital-breath. Here, the term ‘soul’, too, can have a consistent meaning only if the Supreme Soul be understood, since to be the cause of all, mentioned in the passage: ‘To the self alone all this belongs’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.26.1^[10]), is impossible on the part of any one else. His Holiness will speak of this in subsequent aphorisms.^[11]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He gives two alternative explanations of the sūtra the last of which agrees with the explanation given by Nimbārka. The first explanation is: ‘The Plenty (is Brahman), because it is immense joy, and because it is taught as the highest’.^[12]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

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

[2]:

Vide Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.1 et. eq.

[3]:

Tasya bhāvaḥ.

[4]:

p. 894, vol. 1. Correct quotation translated: ‘Pṛthvādihhya imanic vā’.

[5]:

P. 908, vol. 1. That is, bahu + imanic = bhū + man = bhūman.

[6]:

P. 114, vol. 1.

[7]:

Correct quotation: ‘Ātmaivedam sarvam’. Vide Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.25.2, p. 402.

[8]:

P. 423, vol. 2.

[9]:

P.558, vol. 2.

[10]:

For correct quotation see footnote 1, p. 152.

[11]:

Vide Br. SŪ, 2.1.4-35.

[12]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 1.3.8.