Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.21 (correct conclusion, 21-22)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.21 by Roma Bose:

“But (Brahman is) something more, on account of the indication of difference.”

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

The refutation of this is as follows:

We hold that the creator of the world is Brahman, who is “something more” than, i.e. superior to, the embodied sold, the enjoyer of pleasure and pain. “On account of the designation of difference” in the passage: “Who rules the soul within” (Śat. Bṛ. 14.6.7, 30^[1]), there is no absolute non-difference between the two. Hence there cannot result the fault of not doing what is beneficial.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

With regard to this prima facie view, the author states the correct conclusion.

The word “but” disposes of the prima facie view. Since we hold that Brahman,—omniscient, omnipotent, the Lord of all, without an equal or a superior, and the one identical material and efficient cause of the world,—is “something more”, i.e. superior to the embodied soul, the question of not doing what is beneficial does not arise. The reason of His being something more is stated in the phrase: “On account of the indication of difference”, i.e. on account of the indication of a difference between Brahman and the individual soul in the passages: ‘“O, the self, verily, should be seen”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.5; 4.5.6), “The knower of Brahman attains the highest” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1), ‘Who rules the soul within’ (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.6.7, 30). The sense is this: Just as in the passage: ‘All this, verily is Brahman’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1), it being impossible for the group of the non-sentient to be non-different from Brahman, its difference from Brahman is admitted by the phrase ‘emanating from Him’^[2] so it being impossible for the individual soul, too, to be by nature non-different from Brahman on the authority of the stated scriptural text designating difference, it is declared to be non-different from Brahman, by such texts like ‘“Thou art that”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.7, etc.), only as having no existence and activity independently of Brahman, but not by nature. Thus, on account of the designation of difference, in spite of there being a non-difference between the two, faults like doing what is not beneficial do not arise.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Interpretation same, but in conclusion he adds, as usual, the explanation that it is only from the empirical point of view that we can speak of creation of a difference between the individual soul and Brahman; but from the transcendental point of view no question of creation arises at all.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P. 1074, line 18. Quoted by Rāmānuja.

[2]:

The passage is: “All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from Him, disappearing into Him and breathing in Him” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1).

[3]:

“Tatra kuta eva sṛṣṭiḥ, kuto’ vā hita-kāraṇādayo doṣāḥ?” Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 2.1.22, p. 484.