Brahma-Sūtra 2.4.11

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.4.11 by Roma Bose:

“And (there is) no fault on the ground of (its) not being a sense-organ, for thus (scripture) shows.”

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

If it be objected: If the vital-breath be an instrument of the individual soul, then there being no activity suitable to it, there must be fault “on the ground of (its) not being a sense-organ”,—

(We reply:) “no”, since the scriptural text: ‘“I alone, dividing myself five-fold, support and hold the body’” (Praśna 2.3^[1]), “shows” that the holding up of the body is the peculiar function of the vital-breath.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: Just as one can be a perceiver only if there be some object to be perceived, so a thing may be an instrument only if there be some function to be accomplished by it; and this is not found. Hence the vital-breath cannot be a sense-organ. Thus, as the vital-breath is not a sense-organ, so if it be an instrument of the individual soul, it is but a futile one,—

We reply: “No”. There is no such fault. “For,” i.e. since, in order that the vital-breath may be serviceable as an instrument of the individual soul, the holy Scripture “shows”, under the dialogue among the sense-organs, that a purpose is served by the vital-breath as well—one that cannot be served by the sense-organs,—viz. the holding up of the body and the sense-organs: ‘The chief vital-breath said to them: “Do not fall in delusion. It is I alone who, dividing myself five-fold, support and hold the body’” (Praśna 2.3).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

According to them the word “akaraṇatvāt” answers the prima facie, viz. that if the vital-breath be an organ of the soul, then there must be a sense-object for it, like colour for the eyes and so on. The answer is that there need he no sense-object, since the vital-breath is not an organ like the eyes and the rest. Still it is not devoid of a function, the holding of the body being its special function.^[2]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva:

According to them, the word “akaraṇatvāt” means: “On account of not having a function”. That is, no objection can be raised on the ground that the vital-breath has no special activity, for it does have a special function.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara.

[2]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 2.4.11, pp. 662-63; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 2.4.11, p. 148.

[3]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 24.10, p. 177, Part 2, Madras ed.; Quoted by Śrīkaṇṭha B, 2.4.10, p. 174, Darts 7 and 8; Govinda-bhāṣya 2.4.11.