Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.5 (prima facie view concluded)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.5 by Roma Bose:

“But (there is) the designation of the presiding (deities) on account of speciality and following.”

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

“But” in the texts: ‘The earth spoke’ (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 5.5.2, 3 ^[1]), ‘These sense-organs, disputing about self-supremacy, went to Brahma’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.1.7^[2]) and so on, there is ‘the designation of their presiding’ ^[3] deities, ‘on account of the specification’, mentioned in the passage: ‘“Very well, let me enter into these three divinities”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.3.2 ^[4]); and ‘on account of the following’, or entering, mentioned in the passage: ‘Fire, becoming speech, entered the mouth’ (Aitareya-upaniṣad 2.4^[5]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz.: From the scriptural texts: ‘The earth spoke to him’ (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 5.5.2, 3), ‘The earth spoke’ (Śat. Bṛ. 6.1.3, 4^[6]), ‘The waters spoke’ (Śat. Bṛ. 6.1.3, 2^[7]), ‘These sense-organs, disputing about self-supremacy, went to Brahma’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 6.1.7), ‘They said to speech: “Do you sing for us’” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.2) and so on, it is known that of the effects too are sentient; and hence they have no difference from the material cause—

We reply: The word “but” disposes of the stated objection. There is no designation of sentience on the part of the effects, and so they cannot have Brahman for their material cause; but there is the designation of only the presiding deities of earth and the rest in the passages, ‘The earth spoke to him’ (Taittirīya-saṃhitā 5.5.2, 3) and so on. Why? “On account of speciality and following”, i.e. on account of the specification of the earth and the rest by the word ‘deity’ in the passage: ‘“Very well, let me enter into these three deities’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.3.2), and on account of the specifications of the sense-organs by the word ‘deity’ in the passages: ‘These deities, verily, disputing about self-supremacy’ (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 2.14), ‘These deities, verily, having known superiority in the vital breath’ (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 2.14); as well as ‘on account of the following’ of fire and the rest as the presiding deities of speech and the rest, i.e. on account of the scriptural mention of following, or entering, in the passage: ‘Fire, becoming speech, entered the mouth,—the sun, becoming sight, the eyes’ (Aitareya-upaniṣad 2.4). Hence the world being different from Brahman, Brahman is not its material cause.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Literal interpretation same, but import different, since he takes this Sūtra as an adhikaraṇa by itself, not laying down a prima facie view, but the correct conclusion. Thus, the Sūtra means according to him “(If it be objected: How to reconcile the absurd sayings of the Vedas, such as ‘Fire willed to be many’ and so on?). We reply: (In those passages) there is the designation of the presiding (deities) (of fire and the rest), on account of speciality and following (i.e. entering into)”.^[8]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P. 76, line 9, vol. 2.

[2]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Baladeva.

[3]:

[Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series] ed. reads ‘tat-tat’, meaning ‘their respective deities’, p. 24.

[4]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[5]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[6]:

P. 505, line 12.

[7]:

Op. cit., line 9.

[8]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 2.1.5, p. 18, Chap. 2.