Brahma-Sūtra 1.4.15

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.15 by Roma Bose:

“On account of the drawing in.”

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

“On account of the drawing in” of Brahman. That is, the very same Brahman, mentioned previously in the passage: ‘He wished’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.6^[1]), is referred to in the passage: ‘The non-existent, verily’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7^[2]) too. Similarly the very same Brahman, mentioned previously in the passage: ‘The sun is Brahman’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.19.1^[3]), is also referred to in the passage: ‘The non-existent alone was this’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.19.1^[4]). Hence, Brahman alone, who is ever existent, is denoted by the word ‘non-existent’, since there being no distinction of names and forms prior to creation, He has then no existence in so far as connected with these names and forms. In the same manner, what is denoted by the term ‘unmanifest’ in the passage: ‘Verily, at that time, this was unmanifest, it became manifest simply by name and form’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.4.7^[5]), is referred to in the subsequent passage as well: ‘He is entered here as far as the finger-nail tips’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.4.7^[6]) and so on. It is also impossible for the non-sentient pradhāna to be a controller by entering within. Hence, the unmanifest, its controller, is said to be Brahman. The sense is that in the texts, demonstrating the cause of the universe, Brahman alone, established by the defining aphorism and the rest, is to be understood,—there is not even the slightest possibility of pradhāna being so understood.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

“On account of the drawing in” of Brahman. That is, the very same Brahman, omniscient, and creating the universe subsequent to His resolution to be many, as mentioned previously in the passage: ‘He wished’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.6), is also referred to in the passage: ‘The non-existent, verily, was this in the beginning, from that the existent arose’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7). Here, Brahman as possessed of subtle powers in His causal state is denoted by the term ‘non-existent’,—which is but a synonym for the word ‘subtle’,—in contrast to Brahman as possessed of manifested powers in His effected state, fit to be denoted by the term ‘existent—which is but a synonym for the word ‘gross’. In the very same manner indeed, it should be known that Brahman, mentioned previously in the passage: ‘The sun is Brahman’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.19.1), is referred to in the passage too: ‘The non-existent alone was this in the beginning, it was existent’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.19.1). In the very same manner, in the text about the unmanifest as well, it is the inner controller of the unmanifest that is denoted by the word ‘unmanifest’, as here the pronoun ‘he’ refers to Brahman, denoted by the term ‘unmanifest’, in the passage: ‘He is entered here as far as the fingernail tips. When seeing, the eye; when hearing, the ear; when thinking, the mind. Let one worship (Him) as the soul’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.4.7). In spite of there being a separate agent of manifestation, the expression ‘It became manifest (vyākriyata)’ should be understood as denoting an ‘object-agent’ (i.e. the reflexive passive form). Or else, the present indicative should be understood simply in the passive^[7]. Hence, everywhere the cause is one and the same indeed. The objections with regard to the cause are refuted in this section. We shall dispose of the objections with regard to the effects, on the other hand, in the third quarter of the second chapter, under the aphorisms: ‘Not the ether, because of being non-scriptural’ (Brahma-sūtra 2.3.1) and the following. Hence, it is established everywhere that the cause of the universe is Brahman alone, a sentient Being and possessed of omniscience and the rest.

Here ends the section entitled ‘Being the cause’ (4).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

The general purport (of the sūtras 14-15) same, hut while Nimbārka connects this adhikaraṇa more directly with the topic of the preceding part of the pāda, viz. with the refutation of the Sāṃkhya view^[8], Śaṅkara and Bhāskara do not do so, but take it to he concerned with the general question of the concordance of all texts with regard to Brahman.^[9]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

Interpretation different. The same topic continued: ‘On account of the drawing in’. That is, just as the very same Brahman, mentioned in the prior passage: ‘He wished’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.6) is understood in the subsequent passage too: ‘The non-existent alone was this in the beginning’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7), because the two passages involve each other, so exactly, the ‘five five-people’, mentioned in the prior passage (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.17, etc.) are understood as the vital-breath and the rest, mentioned in the subsequent passage (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.18, etc.), because the two passages involve each other.^[10]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

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

[2]:

Op. cit.

[3]:

Not quoted by others.

[4]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Baladeva.

[5]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Baladeva.

[6]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[7]:

I.e. as having reference to a necessarily implied agent, as in the expression: ‘The village is being approached’. Vide Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.4.15, p. 417.

[8]:

This is evident from the concluding sentence of his explanation of the sūtra 15: “Na pradhāna-śaṅkā-gandho’pīti bhāvaḥ”, Vedānta-pārijata-saurabha 1.4.15, p. 133, Kasi Sanskrit Series.

[9]:

This is evident from the beginning of the adhikaraṇa: ‘Tatra idam aparam āśaṅkate: Na janmā-di-karaṇatvaṃ Brahmaṇo, Brahma-viṣayaṃ vā gati-sāmānyaṃ vedānta-vākyānāṃ pratipattum śakyam’, etc. Vide Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.1.14, pp. 412-13; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 1.1.14, pp. 76-77.

[10]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 1.1.14, pp. 532-33, Part 6.