Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.12

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.12 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected; on account of difference, (we reply:) no, on account of the statement of what is not that in each case.”

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

If it be objected: Because of its connection with the body, the imperfections arising from the difference of states, do indeed pertain to the individual soul, though endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest. Likewise they may belong to the Highest as well—we reply: “no”, because nowhere there is any text designating imperfections on the part of the Inner Controller; on the contrary, there are texts about His immortality, viz. ‘“He is your soul, the inner controller, immortal”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.3, etc.^[1]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: The individual soul passes through many different states and assumes many different bodies (such as human, divine and so on), and hence the stated imperfections do indeed pertain to the individual soul, though it is naturally endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, established by the statement of Prajāpati, recorded in the Chāndogya.^[2] Likewise, the Lord too, the Inner Controller of all, has to pass through many different states and come into contact with many different bodies. Hence, those imperfections may pertain to the Highest as well, naturally endowed with the attributes of freedom from, sins and the rest,—

We reply: “No”. Why? “On account of the statement of what is not that in each case,” i.e. because there is no text designating the imperfections of the Highest Person “in each case”, i.e. in any state. The stated imperfections pertain to the individual soul,—which though endowed with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, has yet its real nature concealed through the wish of the Highest, in accordance with its karmas,^[3]—but never to the Highest who has His real nature ever-manifest. Thus, in reference to the state of waking, there are texts establishing the imperfections of the individual soul, such as; “Those who are of a stinking conduct attain a stinking birth” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 5.10.7) and so on, but none referring to the imperfections of the Highest. Then, in reference to the state of dream, there are texts like: “When one sees a black person with black teeth in his dream, he (i.e. the black person) kills him (i.e. the dreamer” (Aitareya-upaniṣad Ār. 3.2.4^[4]) and so on; and in reference to deep sleep, there are texts like: “All creatures go to this world of Brahman day by day, (yet) do not find it, for they are carried away by untruth” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.3.2) and so on,—all referring to the individual soul, but not to the Highest. Similarly, it should be understood that in reference to death and the rest as well there is ‘statement of what is not that’. Our view is further confirmed by the texts designating the immortality of the Inner Controller and proving His faithlessness, viz.: ‘“He is your soul, the inner controller, the immortal”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.3, etc.). The same text is repeated in connection with each of the objects to be controlled,—beginning with the earth, water, fire and sky, and ending with the skin, understanding and semen^[5],—mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka in the text which begins “He who dwelling in the earth is other than the earth, whom the earth does not know, of whom the earth is the body, who rules the earth from within” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.3).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Reading different, viz. adds “na” in the beginning thus: “Ha bhedāt.. Interpretation also different, viz.: “If it be objected that (Brahman is) not (nirviśeṣa), on account of difference (of forms), (we reply:) No, on account of the statement of what is not that in each case”. That is, it may be objected that since Brahman is designated by Scripture as having various forms, e.g. as having four feet, sixteen parts and so on, it must be held to be saviśeṣa, i.e. possessed of attributes and forms; and there is no contradiction involved here in taking Brahman to be so, the difference of Brahman’s forms being due to limiting adjuncts. That is, Brahman is both saviśeṣa and nirviśeṣa according to Scripture. To this the reply is that Scripture depicts Brahman as nirviśeṣa only, even though it mentions its different forms, due to limiting adjuncts,—for in every passage describing such adjuncts of Brahman, it is itself described as free from all diversity. Such designations are for the purpose of meditation only, but their real meaning is non-difference only.^[6]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

Interpretation absolutely different. He continues the topic of the Nirākāra-upāsanā of Brahman. Hence the sūtra: “If it be objected that on account of difference, (i.e. on account of the corporeal and incorporeal forms of Brahman as designated in Scripture,) (Brahman is not to be worshipped in his casual or formless aspect) (we reply:) no, on account of the statement of what is not that in each case, (i.e. because there is no text which designates difference on the part of Brahman due to limiting adjuncts)”.^[7] Hence everywhere the one Brahman is to be worshipped.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Reading different, viz. like Śaṅkara, he adds a “na” in the beginning. Interpretation too different. He continues the theme of the previous sūtra, viz. the oneness of the Lord in spite of His various manifestations in different places. Hence the sūtra: “If it be objected that on account of difference (i.e. because the manifestations of the Lord are different), (the oneness of the Lord, alleged above, is not possible), (we reply:) no, because there is the statement of the absence of that (viz. difference) with regard to each (of these manifestations)”. That is, with regard to each of the manifestations of the Lord, Scripture is careful to point out that He is. one.^[8]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Repeated altogether 20 times (once at the end of each verse) up to the end of the section beginning with verse 3.7.3.

Quoted by Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[2]:

Vide Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.7.1, 3.

[3]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 3.2.5.

[4]:

P. 136-137.

[5]:

Vide Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.3-3.7.23.

[6]:

“Bhedasya upāsanārthatvād abhede tātparyyāt [tātparyāt].” Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.2.12[?], p. 725.

[7]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.2.12, p. 165.

[8]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.2.12, pp. 55-56, Chap. 2.