Brahma-Sūtra 1.4.1

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.1 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that what is derived from inference (viz. pradhāna), too, (is mentioned in the texts) of some (branches), (we reply:) no, because of understanding what is put down in the simile of the body, and (the text) shows (this).”

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

If it be objected that in a text of the Kaṭha-branch, viz. ‘Higher than the great (mahat) is the unmanifest (avyakta), higher than the unmanifest is the Person (puruṣa)’ (Kaṭha 3.11^[1]), “What is derived from inference”^[2], i.e. pradhāna, “too”, is found mentioned,^[3]—

(We reply:) “No”, because in accordance with the text: ‘Know the soul to be the lord of the chariot and the body to be the chariot’ (Kaṭha 3.3^[4]), the body, which is put down in the simile of the chariot, is understood by the term ‘unmanifest’. “And” having demonstrated the mode of subduing the sense-organs, the text “shows”, in the concluding portion^[5], that what had been previously contrived through the simile^[6] (viz. the body), is understood here, thus: ‘A wise man should restrain speech in the mind, that he should restrain in the intelligent soul, the intelligent soul in the great (mahat), that he should restrain in the tranquil soul’ (Kaṭha 3.13^[7]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

In this manner, it has been shown above, under three sections, that the scriptural texts all refer to Brahman, possessing the sentient and the non-sentient as His powers, an ocean of natural, infinite and inconceivable auspicious qualities, untouched by any material qualities and the cause of the world. Now again, in the fourth section, by showing^[8] that those texts too which apparently seem to establish pradhāna—which is demonstrated by the doctrine of Kapila and is independent of Brahman,—all refer really to Brahman, and by establishing^[9] that pradhāna is acceptable only as dependent on Brahman,—the reverend author of the aphorisms is removing the false belief, viz. that certain words like ‘Unmanifest’ and the rest, which denote pradhāna, being mentioned in Scripture, pradhāna, admitted by the Saṃkhyas, is neither non-scriptural, nor derived from inference merely.

In the Kaṭha-vallī, we find the following: ‘Higher than the great (mahat) is the unmanifest (avyakta), higher than the unmanifest is the Person (puruṣa)’ (Kaṭha 3.11). Here, a doubt arises, viz., whether the object denoted by the word ‘unmanifest’ is pradhāna, admitted by the Saṃkhyas, or the body. The prima facie view is as follows: Let it be pradhāna, because here we recognize the very same order, beginning with the great (mahat) and ending with the Person (puruṣa), which is well-known in the Kapila-smṛti. If it be objected: The concordance of the entire Veda with regard to Brahman, the cause of the world, has been established duly; hence it is not possible to establish its connection with anything else, (the reply is:) Very well, let then pradhāna, “derived from inference”, (mentioned in the texts) “of some” schools, be the cause of the world. So here in the school of the Kāṭhakas pradhāna is understood by the term ‘unmanifest’. (Here ends the original prima facie view.)

(Author’s conclusion:) “No”. Wherefore? “Because of under standing what is put down in the simile of the body”, i.e. because by the term ‘unmanifest’ in this text, the body, mentioned in the preceding text and put down as a simile, is to be understood. A simile means the imagination of one object as another on the ground of a certain similarity. Thus, compare the passages: ‘Know the soul to be the lord of the chariot, the body to be the chariot; know intellect to be the charioteer, and the mind to be the reins. The sense-organs, they say, are the horses, the objects of the senses their roads; the self, connected with the sense-organs and the mind, is the enjoyer, so the wise say. He who is devoid of understanding and ever inattentive, his sense-organs are uncontrollable, like the wicked horses of a charioteer. But he who is possessed of intelligence and ever attentive, his sense-organs are controllable, like the good horses of a charioteer. He, however, who is devoid of understanding, is inattentive and ever impure, does not attain that place, and attains mundane existence. But he who is possessed of understanding, is attentive and ever pure, attains that place whence he is not born again. A man, however, who has understanding as his charioteer and the mind as his reins, attains the end of the road, that supreme place of Viṣṇu’ (Kaṭha 3.3; 3.9). In these passages, a man—who is desirous of the place of Viṣṇu, the end of the road of transmigratory existence, and who being the enjoyer is the principal agent—is first metaphorically represented as the lord of a chariot; his body,—which is subordinate to him as the abode of his enjoyment,—as the chariot; and the sense-organs, intellect and the rest, as the charioteer and the rest, as far as possible,—which shows that just as it is possible for a potter to be the creator of pots, etc. only when he is connected with the wheel, the stick and the rest, so the attributes of the soul, viz. ‘being an agent’, ‘being an enjoyer’ and the rest, are found to belong to it, only when it is connected with the body, the sense-organs, etc, and not when it is devoid of attributes, since it is impossible for it then to be the realizing agent,—one who is approaching a goal. After that, the qualities of a sentient being, like: ‘being an agent’, ‘being a realizing agent who is approaching towards a goal’ and so on, implied by its quality of ‘being an enjoyer’ are stated. Immediately after, the liability of a non-knower, whose sense-organs are unrestrained, to transmigratory existence, and the fitness of a knower, whose sense-organs are restrained, for the place of Viṣṇu are designated; and then the place of Viṣṇu is pointed out as the object to be reached. Immediately after this, Scripture goes on to declare those objects which have superiority to others, in so far as these latter are to be controlled, in the passage: ‘Higher than the sense-organs are the objects of senses, higher than the objects is the mind, higher than the mind is intellect, higher than intellect is the great soul. Higher than the great (mahat) is the unmanifest (avyakta), higher than the unmanifest is the Person (puruṣa), nothing is higher than the Person, He is the goal, the highest course’ (Kaṭha 3.10; 3.11). Here, the objects, designated before as the lord of the chariot and the rest, are mentioned irrespective of the simile^[10] for the sake of making the intended meaning clear^[11]. And the soul and the rest, metaphorically represented as the lord of the chariot and so on, are here referred to by those very terms (‘soul’ and so on) respectively; and the body, metaphorically represented as the chariot, being left over, is denoted by the term ‘unmanifest’^[12]. Thus, the objects of senses, metaphorically represented as the roads, are ‘higher than’, i.e. superior to, the sense-organs, metaphorically represented as the horses, in so far as these latter are to be controlled, since when in proximity to objects of senses, the sense-organs of even a self-controlled man are found to incline to them once more. Higher than those even is the mind, metaphorically represented as the reins, since the proximity to objects of sense too is of little avail if the mind be not inclined to them. Higher than that even is intellect, metaphorically represented as the charioteer, since the mind, too, is of little avail in the absence of apprehension. Higher than that even is the soul, metaphorically represented as the lord of the chariot, because of its superiority as an agent. Since all these depend upon its will, it alone is specified as the ‘great’. Higher than that even is the body, metaphorically represented as the chariot, since all the activities of the individual soul in connection with all the means to salvation depend on the body. Higher than that even is the Person, the soul of all and the end of the road of transmigratory existence, since everything else, mentioned previously, are under His control. When He is won by means of meditation, as directed, all the ends of a man are accomplished, as declared by the passage: ‘Whatever verily, be the means resorted to for the sake of the four ends of a man, a man, who has taken refuge in Nārāyaṇa, attains them without it’. Hence, here the mahat, an effect of pradhāna, is not understood by the term ‘great’; nor pradhāna, its cause, by the term ‘unmanifest’; nor puruṣa, admitted by the Sāṃkhyas, the twenty-fifth principle in contrast to the twenty-four material ones, by the term ‘Person’. The entire Veda is in concordance with regard to this very Person, the object which one should desire to enquire into, and an ocean of infinite, auspicious attributes, there being nothing higher than Him, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘There is nothing higher than the Person’ (Kaṭha 3.11), the Smṛti passage: ‘There is nothing else higher than me, O Dhanañjaya’ (Gītā 7.7). The Person alone is the object to be attained, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘That is the goal, that is the highest course’ (Kaṭha 3.11), as well as with the declaration by the interpreter of the texts (viz. Nimbārka): ‘There is no other goal except the lotus-feet of Kṛṣṇa’ (Daśa-ślokī 8a).

Having shown that the Supreme Person is difficult to be attained by one who is not self-controlled, while easy to be attained by one who is self-controlled, and having shown the mode of subduing the sense-organs, the text “shows”, in the concluding portion, that what had appealed previously in the simile is understood here, (and not the Sāṃkhya pradhāna), thus: ‘This soul, hidden in all beings, is not manifest, but is perceived by subtle seers through highest, subtle intellect. A wise man should restrain speech in the mind, that he should restrain in the intelligent soul, the intelligent soul in the great, that he should restrain in the tranquil soul’ (Kaṭha 3.12-3.13). (The text means:) ‘This’, i.e. Vāsudeva,—omniscient, to be approached by the freed souls, and without an equal or a superior, as stated in the text: ‘There is nothing higher than the Person, that is the goal, that is the highest course’ (Kaṭha 3.11),—though present in all beings, ‘is not manifest’, i.e. is not perceived by all, since they are not entitled to perceive Him. For this very reason, He is ‘hidden’,—the compound (viz. “gūrḍho’tmā”) is in accordance with Vedic use,—as declared by the Lord Himself: ‘“I am not manifest to all”’ (Gītā 7.25). If one is entitled to perceive the Lord, then alone He comes to be perceived; hence it is said ‘is perceived’ and so on. All the sense-organs, implied by the term ‘speech’, should be restrained in the mind,—the long vowel (ī in ‘manasī’) is in accordance with Vedic use; the mind in the intelligent soul, i.e. in intellect, since ‘being intelligent’ and ‘being the soul’ are possible on the part of intellect, owing to its. connection with the individual soul; intelligence in the great soul, i.e. in the individual soul; and that in the tranquil, i.e. in Brahman, the Universal Cause. The sense is that if in the previous case (viz. Kaṭha 3.11), because of understanding^[13] the principle ‘mahat’ by the term ‘great’, we understand its cause,—viz. pradhāna which is derived from inference,—by the term ‘unmanifest’ on the ground of its immediate proximity to it, then, here, too, that may be understood by the term ‘great’, and hence (the injunction:) ‘One should restrain the great in the tranquil’ should lead to undesired conclusions^[14]. Hence the concluding text, too, shows that what had previously appeared in the simile of the body is understood here.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

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

[2]:

For, why pradhāna is called ‘ānumānika’, see footnote 1, p. 42.

[3]:

Cf. Brahma-sūtra 1,1.5, which contends that pradhāna is ‘aśabda’ or not mentioned in Scripture.

[4]:

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

[5]:

[Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series] ed. reads ‘vākya-śeṣaḥ’ (p. 19).

[6]:

‘Rūpaka-parikalpitaṃ grahaṇam’ is evidently a misprint. All other editions read ‘rūpaka-parikalpita-grahanam’, meaning ‘rūpaka-parikalpitasya grahaṇam’. Vide e.g. [Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series] ed. (p. 19).

[7]:

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

[8]:

Here the śatṛ-sufiix implies reason.

[9]:

See footnote 1, above.

[10]:

A krama is a kind of simile in which the comparisons exhibited correspond to each other in regular succession. Monier-Williams, p. 319, Col. 2.

[11]:

That is, in order that the intended meaning may be clearly conveyed to the reader, the metaphorical way of representation, resorted to above, is given up here, and the actual objects, the sense-organs and the rest, are directly and plainly stated.

[12]:

The argument is as follows: In Kaṭha 3.3-3.9 the soul, the body and the rest, are successively compared to the lord of a chariot, a chariot and so on; while in Kaṭha 3.10-3.11 the same objects, viz. the soul and so on, are mentioned once more, not metaphorically, but directly and plainly. Now in these latter verses, the soul, etc. are denoted by those very words, only there is no actual mention of the body. Hence, when everything else fits in, the body, the only remaining one on this side, must be denoted by the term ‘unmanifest’, the only remaining one on that side.

[13]:

Here the śatṛ-sufiix implies reason.

[14]:

That is, in that case the mahat would be dependent on Brahman, a conclusion which is contrary to the Sāṃkhya view itself.