Brahma-Sūtra 1.4.22

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.22 by Roma Bose:

“On account of abiding, so kāśakṛtsna.”

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

“On account of the abiding” of the Supreme Lord,—celebrated in the passage: ‘Entered within, the ruler of men’ (Taittirīya-āraṇyaka 3.11.1, 2^[1]) and so on,—in the individual soul as the controller, in the beginning and in what follows, by a term denoting the object to be controlled the controller is understood—so thinks Kāśakṛtsna.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

“On account of the abiding” of the Supreme Soul in the individual soul,—an object to be controlled by Him,—as its soul, in accordance with the texts: ‘He who abiding in the soul is other than the soul, whom the soul does not know, of whom the soul is the body, who rules the soul within, he is your soul, the inner controller, immortal’ (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.6.7, 30^[2]), ‘Entered within, the ruler of men, the soul of all’ (Taittirīya-āraṇyaka 3.11.2), by a term denoting the individual soul, the Supreme Soul is denoted,—so thinks the teacher Kāśakṛtsna, a knower of the object controlled, as well as of the controller.

Thus, by means of the views of the three sages, the nature of difference and non-difference has been incidentally shown by his Holiness. And with a view to removing the contradiction among the scriptural texts by his own theory, he will clearly prove the natural relation of difference-non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman in the aphorisms: ‘A part, on account of the designation of variety’ (Brahma-sūtra 2.3.42) and so on.

Here, the word ‘soul’ in the beginning refers to the Supreme Soul alone. The worship of that very Supreme Soul is designated as a means to salvation in the passage: ‘“O, the soul, verily”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.5; 4.5.6) and so on. The text: ‘Having arisen from these beings, one vanishes into them alone’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.12; 4.5.13), indicates trans-migratory existence pertaining to one who is averse to the Supreme Soul; and the text: ‘There is no consciousness after death’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.12; 4.5.13) indicates salvation pertaining to His worshipper. Hence, it is established that the texts of the Maitreyī-brāhmaṇa all agree in referring to Brahman, different and non-different from the sentient and the non-sentient, the cause of all, to be approached by the freed and the controller of all.

Here ends the section entitled ‘The connection of texts’ (6).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha:

Here too, as before, the general import is the same, but while Nimbārka^[3] takes this adhikaraṇa to be connected more directly with the refutation of the Sāṃkhya doctrine, Śaṅkara, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha do not. Further, Śaṅkara and Bhāskara interpret the word ‘avasthiteḥ’ differently. To them, it means ‘because of (Brahman’s) abiding as the individual soul’ (vijñātmā-bhāvena)^[4].

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

p. 181. Quoted by Rāmānuja

[2]:

P. 1074, line 18.

[3]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 1.4.11, p. 137, Kāsī ed.

 

[4]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 1.4.21, p. 426; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 1,4.21, p. 81.