Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.1

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.1 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that there will result the fault of not leaving a room for Smṛti, (we reply:) no, for there will result the fault fob leaving no room for (other) Smṛtis.”

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

Now, it is being demonstrated in details how the stated concordance is free from all contradictions. If it be objected: There does exist a need for Smṛtis for confirming Scripture. Among these, the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti is to be accepted. It is not to be said that it, designating as it does a non-sentient cause, is not to he accepted for that reason—for, then, “there will result the fault of leaving no room for Smṛti”—(we reply:) ‘no’, for, then, there will result the contradiction of other Smṛtis which deal with a sentient cause mentioned in the Veda—such is the meaning of the text.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

With a view to inducing one desiring salvation to the repeated practice of the hearing, thinking and the like of the Vedānta, revealing the qualities, nature and so on of Brahman,—which practice is conducive to the meditation on Brahman, the exclusive cause of a direct vision of Him,—the concordance of the scriptural texts with regard to Brahman,—the Highest Person, different and non-different from all, free by nature from all faults, the one abode of a mass of auspicious qualities and the cause of the world,—has been shown in the previous chapter. Now, in this second chapter, contradictions are being removed. Thus, in the first quarter, the faults found by the opponents with our own view are refuted. In the second quarter, faults are found with the views of the opponents, based on a semblance of reason, (and not on real reason), with a view to inducing people to our own view. In the third quarter, it is shown in details how the scriptural texts, regarding the origin of the great elements like the ether and the rest, are all free from contradictions; and, further, the order of creation and destruction, and the nature of the individual soul, are determined. In the fourth quarter, again, the contradictions among the texts, demonstrating the organs of the individual soul, are removed. Now, first, it is being demonstrated that our view is consistent with the Smṛtis as well.

It has been stated in the section treating of proof^[1] that Brahmaṃ the cause of the world, has the Veda as His sole proof, since He cannot be known through any other source. And in the section, treating of concordance^[2], it has been established that there is concordance of all the Vedas with regard to Brahman alone. And, likewise, the meaning of the Veda being very difficult to be grasped without the help of Smṛtis, composed by those who are versed in the Veda, there is a need for Smṛtis as well. It has been declared by Smṛti itself that one, who is without the Smṛti, to be a one-eyed man, thus: ‘Scripture and Smṛti are celebrated to be the two eyes of the wise. Deprived of one, one is said to be “one-eyed”; deprived of both, “blind” Hence, on the doubt, viz. whether the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti and the rest are to be accepted as true for the sake of making the Veda clear, or the Manu-Smṛti and the like,—if it be argued: The Sāṃkhya-Smṛti is to he accepted for the sake of making the Veda clear, the aim of the Veda being to impart self-knowledge to all. If unable to give rise to self-knowledge, the collected Vedie texts must all be simply fruitless like a cow yielding no milk. So why should a Smṛti, which is concerned with teaching self-knowledge, be disregarded by any seeker after knowledge? The Manu-Smṛti and the rest, on the other hand, aim simply at demonstrating the works which lead to results, here or hereafter. The Śvetāśvataras record the omniscience of Kapila in the passage: ‘Who, in the beginning, bears in bis thoughts the sage Kapila, the born, and sees him while being born’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 5.2). Hence the Smṛti which is composed by an omniscient person must be accepted for knowing the principle of the soul. That part of Veda which teaches the principle of the soul should be understood in accordance with the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti alone. Thus, as the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti teaches a non-sentient cause, the doctrine of a sentient cause cannot be accepted. Otherwise, “there will result the fault of leaving no room for the Smṛti”, i.e. there must result the fault of leaving no room for a Smṛti which designates a non-sentient cause and is composed by an omniscient sage, celebrated in the Veda,—

(We reply;) ‘no’, such a prima facie view is not reasonable. Why? “Because there will result the fault of not leaving room for other Smṛtis”, i.e. because there will result the fault of leaving no room for the Smṛtis other than it, viz. the Manu-Smṛti and the rest which establish Brahman to be the sole cause and are based on Scripture. The opponent who is shouting on the ground of Smṛti can be silenced by that very Smṛti itself. Thus, the reverend Manu says: ‘He appeared as possessing effective powers, like the great elements and the rest, dispelling darkness’ (Manu 1.6^[3]), ‘He having intended (to be many), and desirous of creating various kinds of beings, created water in the beginning and left his power in it’ (Manu 1.8^[4]). Āpastamba too says: ‘Living beings are the abode of him who dwells in all caves (viz. hearts), who is not killed and who is stainless’ (Āp. Daśa-ślokī 1.22.4^[5]), ‘From him arise all bodies. He alone is the source, constant, he is eternal’ (Ap. Daśa-ślokī 1.23.2^[6]). It is said in the Bhārata (i.e. Mahā-bhārata) in the Bāja-dharma: ‘“You are its origin and the dissolution, O Kṛṣṇa! You alone create this universe in the beginning. And this universe is under your control, O Source of the Universe! Obeisance to you, O (Lord) with the bow, disc and sword in hands!”’ (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 12.1514^[7]). In the Mokṣa-dharma^[8], it is said; ‘“For he is the inner soul of beings, and called the knower of the field^[9]. He is Nārāyaṇa, having the universe as his form, infinite, constant^[10]. From him arose the unmanifest, having three guṇas, O best among the twice-born !”’ (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 12.12680^[11]). In that very section, to the question: ‘“O reverend Father! O supremely wise one! I wish to hear, in truth, about Viṣṇu, with eyes like lotus, unchangeable, the creator who is not created, the origin and dissolution of beings, about Nārāyaṇa, Hṛṣīkeśa, Govinda, the unconquered, about Keśava, O best among the Bharatas!”’ (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 12.7518-19^[12]), (the answer given was:) ‘“The Highest Person, the great-souled one, the soul of beings, fashioned the great elements, the air, the light and likewise the water, and the ether and the sky”’ (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 12.7825^[13]). In the Dāna-dharma, Śiva says: ‘“Higher than even the reverend Father (i.e. Brahmā) is Hari, the eternal Person, Kṛṣṇa, of a golden appearance and arisen like the sun in the cloudless sky, designated as Śrīvatsa, Hṛṣikeśa worshipped by all the deities. Brahmā has sprung up from his belly,—likewise I from his forehead, the lights from the hairs on his head, the gods and the demons from his body-hairs, the sages have arisen from his body, likewise, the eternal worlds. He is the veritable abode of the reverend Father (i.e. Brahma), as well as the abode of all the gods. He is the creator of this entire world, the Lord of all the three worlds, the destroyer of all beings, of the immobile as well as of the mobile. He is directly perceived at all times indeed by one who has conquered his passions. He is the Lord of the gods and higher than the high, omniscient, connected with all, moving everywhere and turned towards all. He is the Supreme Soul, Hṛṣīkeśa, all-pervading, the Supreme Lord’” (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 13.6507-6512^[14]). In that very section, the omniscient Devavrata, too, says, beginning: ‘“For I know Kṛṣṇa in truth”’ (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 13.7659^[15]) and continuing: ‘“Know everything, the movable, as well as the immovable, all souls and the universe as Kṛṣṇa.^[16] Whatever is honoured in the worlds as a meritorious act, whatever is auspicious or inauspicious,—all that is Keśava, the inconceivable, everything else is the reverse. Such a Keśava is self-born, He is Nārāyaṇa supreme and unchangeable; the middle, the beginning and the end of the universe which existed; knowable by all; the origin as well as the dissolution of beings’” (Mahābhārata (Asiatic Society edition) 13.7391; 7399—7400^[17]). And the statements by Him whose feet are worshipped by all the composers of Smṛtis are as follows; ‘“I am the source of all, from me everything arises”’ (Gītā 10.8), “‘I am the source, likewise, the dissolution of the entire universe”’ (Gītā 7.6). Parāśara, too, declares: ‘“The universe has arisen from Viṣṇu, and in Him alone it is grounded. He is the cause of the subsistence and control of the universe and He is the universe”’ (Viṣṇu-purāṇa 1.1.35^[18]). The sense is that if the view of Kapila be accepted as conducive to the Vedanta, then all those above and other texts must be contradicted. But the Manu-Smṛti and others are acceptable, since they establish religious duties, which are meant to the knowledge of Brahman, designated in the Veda; since they establish the qualities, nature and the rest of Brahman; and since they are composed by those who know the Veda. And in the Veda the cause of the world is designated to be a sentient principle, in fact, none but Brahman. Because of their opposition to this, the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti and the rest are not acceptable. As the reverend Manu says: ‘Whatever Smṛtis are outside the pale of the Veda, whatever heterodox doctrines there are,—all of them are fruitless after death; these Smṛtis are given to ignorance’ (Manu 12.95^[19]). Further, the composer, too, of the Smṛti which is opposed to the Veda (viz. the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti) is a certain sage, called Kapila, like Kaṇāda and the rest, but is not the lord Kapila, called Vāsudeva. As is declared by the Padma-purāṇa: ‘Kapila, called Vāsudeva, told the principle of the Sāṃkhya, supported by the meaning of all the Vedas, to the gods like Brahma and the rest, and likewise to Bhṛgu and others, likewise to Āsuri. Another Kapila told the Sāṃkhya, opposed to all the Vedas and supported by false arguments, to another Āsuri’. Kapila, mentioned in the scriptural text, should be known to be Hiraṇyagarbha.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vide Brahma-sūtra 1.1.3.

[2]:

Vide Brahma-sūtra 1.1.4.

[3]:

P. 5.

[4]:

P. 5.

[5]:

p. 39, lines 3.4.

[6]:

P. 40, line 2.

[7]:

P. 419, line 5, vol. 3.

[8]:

The name of a section of the 12th book of the Mahā-bhārata, from Chap. 174 to the end.

[9]:

I.e. the knower of the body.

[10]:

This line is not found either in the Asiatic Society eel., or in the Vaṅgāvasī ed. Both read instead the line: ‘Triguṇa-vyatirikto vai puruṣaś ceti kalpitaḥ’. Vide Asiatic Society ed., p. 812, line 5, vol. 3. Vaṅgavāsī ed., p. 1800, lines 14-15.

[11]:

P. 812, lines 5-6, vol. 3, Asiatic Society ed.

[12]:

P. 631, lines 18-19, vol. 3.

[13]:

Op. cit. line 25.

[14]:

Pp. 237-238, vol. 4. Reading different in some places, viz. ‘Sa hi devavaraḥ sākṣād deva-nāthaḥ parantapaḥ, Sarvajñaḥ m hi saṃśliṣṭaḥ...’ Vaṅgavāsī ed. reads sarvasaṃśliṣṭaḥ otherwise it is the same as the above. P. 2006, vol. 2.

[15]:

P. 256, line 26, vol. 4.

[16]:

Reading: ‘Sarvaṃ kṛtsnam..viśvam enam..’. P. 258, line 7. Reading in the Vaṅgavāsī ed. exactly similar. P. 2017.

[17]:

P. 258, lines 7, 18-19. Reading: ‘Etādṛśaḥ, Keśavo’taś ca bhūyo Nārāyaṇaḥ.. sambabhūṣatām....’. Vaṅgavāsī ed. exactly similar, only 'bubhūṣatām’ in place of ‘sambabhūṣatām’ P.2017.

[18]:

P. 8.

[19]:

P. 483.