Brahma-Sūtra 1.4.6

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.6 by Roma Bose:

“And thus there are statement as well as question about three alone.”

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

That in this Upaniṣad, “there are statement as well as question about three”,—viz. the means, the end, and the realizing agent,—is known from a consideration of the meaning of the prior and later texts. Here, there is no room for determining a principle which is derived from inference (viz. pradhāna).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Here pradhāna cannot be understood by the term ‘unmanifest’, since here in the Kaṭha-vallī, “there is statement about three alone”,—viz. the Supreme Soul, the worship of Him, and the worshipper,—as the objects to be designated; “as well as question” about them as the objects to be known, but not about pradhāna and the rest, established by the Sāṃkhya-tantra. Thus, when three boons were promised to Naciketas by Death with the words: ‘“Since you have passed three days in my house without eating, O Brāhmaṇa, a guest to be saluted, salute to you, O Brāhmaṇa, may it be well with me; therefore choose three boons for each (night)”’ (Kaṭha 1.9), the former asked for the propitiation of his father as the first boon thus: ‘“May Gautama be tranquil-minded, well-disposed, with anger appeased towards me, O Death! May he cheerfully greet me, when dismissed by you,—this I choose as the first boon among the three”’ (Kaṭha 1.10). Then, being granted the propitiation of his father with the words: ‘“Auddālaka Āruṇi, dismissed by me^[1], will be cheerful as before, he will sleep happily at nights, with his anger appeased”’ (Kaṭha 1.11) and so on, he asked for the knowledge of fire, called Naciketas, and a means to salvation, thus: ‘“You know, O Death, the heavenly fire; tell it to me, who has faith. Those who live in the heaven-world partake of immortality—this I ask as the second boon”’ (Kaṭha 1.13). The construction of the above text is as follows: ‘O Death!’ ‘You know’, i.e. remember and know, the ‘heavenly fire’, i.e. the fire which leads to salvation. So ‘tell that to me’, desirous as I am of salvation. I choose as the second boon that knowledge of the fire, whereby ‘those who live in the heaven-world’, i.e. those to whom belong the heaven-world, viz. the world to be approached by the freed souls through the path beginning with light as stated in the fourth chapter^[2], or the Vedāntins, ‘partake of’, i.e. attain, ‘immortality’ or salvation. Here the word ‘heaven’ applies to salvation equally, this being well-known from other texts as well, such as, ‘The world of heaven is a golden sheath, covered with light’, ‘The knowers of Brahman go to Brahman, to the world of heaven’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.8^[3]) and so on. Then, having obtained the knowledge of the fire, taught thus: ‘“I tell it to you, learn it from me, knowing the heavenly fire, O Naeiketas! The attainment of the infinite world, and the support”’ (Kaṭha 1.14) and so on, he,—by means of a question regarding the real nature of salvation, characterized by the attainment of the Supreme Soul, the highest end of men,—asked, as the third boon, about the real nature of the object to be attained, the real nature of the attainer and the real nature of meditation, the means, thus: ‘“When a man is dead there is this doubt, some saying that he is, others that he is not. This may I know, taught by you, this is the third among the boons’” (Kaṭha 1.20). Thus, when the real nature of salvation was asked thus, the reply given by Yama, preceded by an examination of Naciketa’s fitness for that teaching, was as follows: ‘“Him, who is difficult to be śeen, who is hidden, who has entered within, who is hidden in the cave and who dwells in the abyss, by knowing Him as God through the knowledge of the Yoga relating to the soul, a wise man discards joy and sorrow’” (Kaṭha 2.12).

Having been thus taught, in a general manner, Naciketas with a view to understanding clearly the real nature of the object to be attained, indicated by the word ‘God’, the real nature of the means, viz. knowledge, demonstrated by the phrase ‘by knowing’, and the real nature of the attainer, demonstrated by the words ‘wise man’, once more asked about meditation, different from means like merit and demerit, thus: ‘“Different from the right, different from the non-right”’ (Kaṭha 2.14); about the object to be approached, not limited by time, thus ‘“Different from what has been done and what has not been done, different from what has been and what will be”’ (Kaṭha 2.14); and also about the attainer, as this latter question is a question about the attainer, the sentient being as well, the latter, too, being eternal and included among the objects to be attained.^[4]

Or else, this text is concerned with a question about the object to be approached. Like the co-ordination of the two words ‘different’, mentioned in the text ‘“Different from the right, different from nonright”’ (Kaṭha 2.14), there is also a co-ordination between the two words ‘different’, mentioned subsequently, and so in this question about the object to be approached, the approaching agent and of the means too have been included; and hence really no less than three questions were asked.^[5]

Then, having praised the praṇava by way of demonstrating Brahman; having depicted the real nature of the attainer, denoted by the praṇava, and the real nature of the means, denoting the praṇava; and having taught the praṇava once more, Yama taught the real nature of the attainer, in the passage: ‘“A wise man is neither born, nor dies. He has not arisen from anything, has not become anything. Unborn, eternal, constant is this ancient one, who is not killed when the body is killed”’ (Kaṭha 2.25); the real nature of the object to be attained, in the passage beginning: ‘“Smaller than the small, greater than the great is the soul placed in the cave (i.e. heart) of this creature. Him one who is free from active will sees, freed from sorrow, through the grace of the Creator, (and) the glory of the soul”’ (Kaṭha 2.20), and ending: ‘“Who knows thus”?’ (Kaṭha 2.25); and meditation that is of the form of devotion, in the middle in the passage: ‘“This soul is not attainable by the study of the Veda”’ (Kaṭha 2.23) and so on. Then, having stated that the Supreme Soul is easily attainable by the individual soul,—since the Person worshipped and the worshipper have entered into the same cave (Kaṭha 3.1^[6]),—and the mode of worship, as well as the attainment of the place of Viṣṇu by the worshipper, in the passage which begins: ‘“Know the soul to be a lord of chariot”’ (Kaṭha 3.3), and ends: ‘“This the wise declare”’ (Kaṭha 3.14), he concluded with the words: ‘“Invisible”’ (Kaṭha 3.15) and so on. Hence, this Upaniṣad contains a statement about the three alone as the objects to be known, as well as a question about them; there is no reference to pradhāna, established by the Tantra, (viz. the Sāṃkhyas).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

That is, commanded by me. Vide Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) on Kaṭha: ‘Matprasṛṣṭaḥ mayā anujñātaḥ san’.

[2]:

Vide Brahma-sūtra 4.3.1 et seq.

[3]:

Correct quotation: ‘Tena dhīrāḥ apiyanti brahma-vidaḥ svargaṃ lokam’. Vide Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.8, p. 237.

[4]:

That is, the last portion of Kaṭha 2.14 is a question about both Brahman, the object to be attained, and the individual soul, the attainer, since the latter, too, is eternal and an object to be attained like the former.

[5]:

The entire passage is:

‘Anyatra dharmād anyatra adharmād anyatra asmāt kṛtākṛtāt.
Anyatra bhūtād bhavyāc ca yat tat paśyasi tad vada’
     (Kaṭha 2.14).

The author is here trying to show that this is not a question about a single thing, but about three different things, viz. Brahman, the individual soul, and the means to salvation.

He offers two explanations;

(a) The portion: ‘Different from the right and different from the nonright’ refers to the means, viz. knowledge, different from ordinary merit and demerit. And, the portion: ‘Different from what has been done and what has not been done, different from what has been and what will be’ refers equally to Brahman and the individual soul, to both of whom, who are eternal, the above -description fittingly applies. Hence the above question means: Tell me about the means, (2) the individual soul and (3) Brahman.

(b) The whole text is really a question about Brahman, but includes questions about the other two as well. Thus, the portion ‘different from the right...’ means ‘who is different from the means’; and the portion ‘different from what has been done....’ means, ‘who is different from the individual soul’. Hence the above question means: Tell me about (1) Brahman, who is different from (2) the means and (3) the individual soul. As such it is really a question about the last two as well.

[6]:

Vide Brahma-sūtra 1.2.11-12.