Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.3

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.3 by Roma Bose:

“Hereby the Yoga is refuted.”

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

By the refutation of the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti, the Yoga-Smṛti, too is refuted.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now, the author points out the unauthenticity of the Yoga-Smṛti.

This aphorism is of the form of a formal extension (atideśa). A formal extension means the intimation of similarity when such a similarity is not known. Thus, at first, the Yoga-Smṛti is taken to be concerned with making the Yeda clear, accepting as it does the word ‘Yoga’, which is accepted by Scripture, too, in the text: ‘This they think to he the Yoga, the firm holding back of the senses’ (Kaṭha 6.11); and hence its similarity to the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti is not known. Therefore, this aphorism intimates the similarity of the Yoga-Smṛti to the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti. “Hereby”, i.e. by this very refutation of the Sāṃkhya-Smṛti which establishes a non-sentient cause, the Yoga-Smṛti, too, should be known to be refuted. In the statement: “The Yoga is refuted”, by the term “yoga”, the Smṛti which establishes it is understood. The purpose of the mention of the term “Yoga” in the statement: ‘The Yoga-Smṛti is refuted’ is this: Although the Lord is admitted in the Yoga doctrine, yet He is not established primarily, as He is in the aphorism and texts like: ‘Then, therefore, an enquiry into Brahman’ (Brahma-sūtra 1.1.1), ‘“O, the soul, verily, should be seen”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.5; 4.5.6): The primacy of the Yoga alone is found in the beginning: ‘Now, an instruction with regard to the Yoga’ (Yogasūtra 1.1), and in the aphorism, laying down its definition, viz.: ‘The Yoga is the suppression of the functions of the mind’ (Yogasūtra 1.2^[1]). And, this mere suppression of the functions of the mind, devoid of any connection with the Lord, is, indeed, of no avail in crossing the world, any more than a dog’s tail is in crossing the ocean. So, it is to be rejected, opposed as it is to Scriptural and Smṛti texts like ‘“O, the soul, verily, should be seen”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.5; 4.5.6), ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1), ‘“By knowing me, one attains peace”’ (Gītā 5.29), ‘The binder with the noose of the world, and the liberator from the noose of the world’, ‘This one thing is, well-established that the object to he worshipped is Narāyaṇa, Hari’ and so on. Salvation being impossible through a mere suppression of the functions of the mind, the Yoga doctrine which deals with the primacy of that only is, indeed, non-acceptable. Its view is that pradhāna, devoid of any connection with Brahman, is the material cause of the world, and the Lord is merely the efficient cause of the world; and this, too, being opposed to the Veda, is certainly unreasonable. There are many other faults in the Yoga doctrine, but they are not quoted here needlessly. And the term ‘Yoga’ found in Scripture and Smṛti, refers to the meditation and the rest on the Lord. The eulogizing statement in the Mokṣa-dharma, etc., on the contrary, is intended only for referring to that portion of Yoga, etc. which is not opposed to Scripture. Hence, it is established that the stated concordance, indicating the causality of Brahman, is not contradicted by the Yoga-Smṛti.

Here ends the section entitled ‘The refutation of the Yoga’ (2).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P. 4.