Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 1.4.3, including the commentary of Nimbarka and sub-commentary of Srinivasa known as Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and Vedanta-kaustubha resepctively. Also included are the comparative views of important philosophies, viz., from Shankara, Ramanuja, Shrikantha, Bhaskara and Baladeva.

Brahma-Sūtra 1.4.3

< Previous

Next >

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.3 by Roma Bose:

“(Pradhāna) has a meaning on account of (its) dependence on him.”

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

Pradhāna, taught in the Upaniṣads, “has a meaning on account of its dependence” on the Supreme Cause; while that admitted by others is meaningless, such is the distinction (between our pradhāna and that of others, viz. of the Sāṃkhyas).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. In that case, be happy by failing in with the Sāṃkhyas, since yon admit the doctrine of the causality of pradhāna,—the author replies here:

In ordinary experience, a non-sentient object, having no connection with a sentient principle, can have no meaning, incapable as it is of giving rise to an effect. Never does a lump of clay assume the form of a pot by itself. Similarly, pradhāna, admitted by the Sāṃkhyas, having no connection with a sentient principle and itself non-sentient, is not able to give rise to effects; hence, it is simply meaningless. Pradhāna, taught in the Upaniṣads, on the other hand, “has a meaning”. That has a meaning which serves the ‘meaning’, or the purpose, of giving rise to all effects, beginning with the mahat and ending with a tuft of grass. Why? “On account of (its) dependence on Him”.^[1] That which is dependent on Him, i.e. on Brahman or Lord Vāsudeva, sentient and the Supreme Cause, is ‘tad-adhīna’, viz. pradhāna, the state of being that (tad-adhīnatva), on account of that (tad-adhīnatvāt).

But the dependence of pradhāna on Brahman is not like the dependence of atoms on Īśvara, as held by the logicians, but is due to the relation between a power and the possessor of the power,^[2] as established by the scriptural text like: ‘The own power of the Deity, hidden by his own qualities’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.3) and so on. The scriptural texts, establishing pradhāna as taught in the Upaniṣads, have been quoted above.^[3]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

He gives two alternative explanations of the sūtra, the first of which tallies with the explanation given by Nimbārka. The second is as follows: ‘But (the subtle causal body is designated as) subtle (in reference to the gross body), because of the fitness (of the word “unmanifest” to denote it)’ (Sūtra 2). (‘Bondage and release) have meaning as dependent on it (viz. the subtle body)’ (Sūtra 3)^[4].