Brahma-Sūtra 2.3.18

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.3.18 by Roma Bose:

“(The soul is) a knower, for that very reason.”

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

The soul, which is an ego, is a knower.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Thus, it has been pointed out that the soul does not originate like the ether and the rest, since it is eternal, as established by Scripture. Now, incidentally, its nature, etc. are being determined.

The word ‘soul’ is to be supplied from the preceding aphorism. By the phrase “for this reason”, the reason mentioned by the term ‘therefrom’ (in the preceding sūtra) is referred to. On the doubt, viz, whether the soul is non-sentient by nature, but possessed of the attribute of knowledge or mere consciousness, or knowledge by nature yet possessed of (the attribute of) being a knower,—the Vaiśeṣikas^[1] and the like hold that it is non-sentient, yet possessed of the attribute of knowledge; while the Sāṃkhyas and the rest hold that the soul is mere consciousness.

With regard to it we reply: “A knower”, i.e. the individual soul is nothing but a knower, i.e. nothing but knowledge by nature, yet-possessed of (the attribute of) being a knower. Why? On the ground of the following scriptural texts, viz. ‘Here this person becomes self-illuminating’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.9, 14), ‘The person who is made of knowledge among the vital-breaths, who is the light in the heart’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.7), ‘There is no annihilation of the knowledge of the knower, because of his imperishability’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.30), ‘“Whereby should one know, O! the knower’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.14; 4.5.15), ‘This person simply knows’, ‘For he is the one who sees,..^[2] hears, smells,..^[3] thinks, conceives, does, the intelligent self’ (Praśna 4.9) and so on.

The doctrine of the non-sentient soul, on the other hand, is to be rejected,—because then the attribute of knowledge by itself, being the effector of all practical transactions, will come to attain primacy; and hence the non-sentient substratum of the attribute (viz. the soul), being non-liable to salvation or bondage, virtue or vice, will come to be non-primary or useless like the nipple on the neck of a goat;^[4] and finally, because of its opposition to Scripture.

The doctrine of mere consciousness, too, is to be rejected, because if consciousness be all-pervading, then there will be no perception of the pleasure and the like pertaining to the entire body; but if it be atomic in size, then there will be no experience of the pleasure and the like pertaining to hands, feet and so on.

Hence it is established that this soul, known through self-consciousness, is knowledge by nature and a knower.

Here ends the section entitled “The knower” (8).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Interpretation different—viz. he interprets the word “jña” as eternal consciousness and not as a knower.^[5]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vide Vaiśeṣika-sūtras 3.1.18, and Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary, p. 161.

[2]:

Touches.

[3]:

Tastes.

[4]:

An emblem of any useless or worthless object or person.

[5]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 2.2.18, p. 609.