Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.13

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.13 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that on account of (brahman) becoming an enjoyer, (there will be) non-distinction, (between brahman and the individual soul), we reply: it may be as in ordinary life.”

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

If it be objected that if Brahman he the material cause, then Brahman Himself will become an enjoyer of pleasures and pains in the form of the individual soul, so that there will he no distinction between the enjoyer (viz. the individual soul) and the controller (viz. Brahman) as well-known from the Veda,—

(We reply:) In spite of there being a non-distinction, there is a distinction as well between the two, as between the sea and the wave, and between the sun and its ray.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now, having apprehended an objection once more, the author is disposing of that here.

If it be objected: If Brahman who is without an equal or a superior be the material cause of the world, then there must be no distinction between the enjoyer and the object enjoyed. Why? “On account of becoming the enjoyer.” That is, all effects whatsoever being non-different from their causes, the enjoyer, i.e. the individual soul, will become the object enjoyed; and the object enjoyed, i.e. the body, the sense-organs and the sense-objects, will become the enjoyer; and hence, the distinction between the enjoyer and the object enjoyed, well-known in ordinary life and in the Veda, will not be possible on this doctrine of the causality of Brahman. Moreover, there will not be any distinction between the enjoyer and the controller, because the group of enjoyers being non-different from the controller, the enjoyer will become the controller, and the controller, the Supreme Soul, will become the enjoyer. In ordinary life, to begin with, the distinction between the enjoyer and the object enjoyed is well-known, thus ‘The individual soul is the enjoyer, the body and the rest are the objects enjoyed’, and in the Veda too, thus: “Eats the sweet berry” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3,1.1; Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 4.6). Similarly, the distinction between the enjoyer and the controller, too, is well-known in ordinary life, as is evident from the conduct of the good who always regard their pleasures and pains as dependent on the Lord; and in the Veda too, thus: “He alone makes one do good deeds” (Kauṣītaki-upaniṣad 3.8), “The soul which is without the Lord is bound, because of being an enjoyer” (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.8) and so on. Thus, “on account of becoming an enjoyer, there is non-distinction”; and hence the doctrine of the causality of Brahman cannot be accepted,—

The author states the correct conclusion in the words “It may be, as in ordinary life”. That is, on our view, too, there may, indeed, be a distinction between the enjoyer and the object enjoyed, as well as between the enjoyer and the controller, “as in ordinary life”. In ordinary life, although pots, dishes and the rest, having the lump of clay as their material cause; bracelets, ear-rings and the rest, having gold as their material cause; foams, waves and the rest, having the sea as their material cause; and leaves, fruits and the rest, having the tree as their material cause, are all non-different from their respective causes, there is still a mutual distinction amongst the particular effects themselves. In exactly the same manner, there may be a mutual distinction between the enjoyer and the object enjoyed, although they are non-different from Brahman, having Brahman as their material cause. Similarly, in spite of their non-distinction, there may still be a distinction between the enjoyer and the controller; just as pots, dishes and the rest, though by nature non-different from the clay, as having no existence and activity apart from the clay, are yet by nature different, too, from the clay possessing as they do their own peculiar attributes which the clay lacks. The same should be known to be the case with the gold and bracelets and the rest too. Likewise, there is a natural relation of difference—non-difference between Brahman and the individual soul. There is, indeed, no inconsistency here. Hence it is established that the doctrine of the causality of Brahman is not open to the above objections. ^[1]

Here ends the section entitled “Becoming the enjoyer” (5).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

Interpretation different, viz. they interpret the sūtra like Śrīnivāsa, although while Śrīnivāsa understands the word “bhoktrāpatteḥ” to mean ‘because the enjoyer will become the object enjoyed and vice versa, as well because the enjoyer will become the controller and vice versa’, they understand it to mean only ‘because the enjoyer will become the object enjoyed and vice versa’. Each develops his own peculiar theory in connection.^[2]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Note the different interpretations given by Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa.

[2]:

Ś.B. 2.1.13, pp. 461 et seq.; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 2.1.13, p. 92.