Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.14

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.14 by Roma Bose:

“For (Brahman) is without form (i.e. not ah enjoyer) indeed, on account of being the principal (agent) with regard to that (viz. creation of names and forms).”

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

The Highest is the principal agent, the creator of names and forms, as declared by the text: ‘“Let me evolve name and form”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.3.2^[1]). Hence He is not the enjoyer of the names and forms to be created by Himself, and as such Brahman is “without form”. Hence Brahman is not touched even by an odour of imperfections.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. There may not be any imperfections on the part of Brahman even on account of place; still as the creator of names and forms, Brahman must be their enjoyer too, for generally a creator creates objects for enjoying them. Names and forms are known to have Brahman as their creator from the use of the first person in the text: ‘“Let me evolve name and form”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.3.2). Hence it is established that the Supreme Brahman is subject to karmas, and every imperfection is possible on the part of one who is subject to karmas,—the author replies:

One to whom the forms together with the names,—such as the divine bodies and the rest, created by Brahman in accordance with the works of the individual soul,—are not objects of enjoyment is “without form”. Hence Brahman, who is “without form indeed” does not proceed to evolve names and forms for His own enjoyment, since all His desires are eternally fulfilled. The word “for” indicates the absence of all imperfections, arising from the material names and forms, on the part of Brahman. Why? “On account of being the principal (agent) with regard to that,” i.e. because “with regard to that”, or with regard to that act, Brahman is the principal agent, the creator of names and forms, in accordance with the scriptural text: “The ether, verily, is the creator of names and forms” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.14.1.). That the Highest creates names and forms for the sake of the individual soul, is indicated by the words ‘by the individual soul’ (jīvena).^[2] The individual soul, possessed of the stated marks, is a part of Brahman; and Brahman, the Whole, dwells in it, in accordance with the scriptural text: “He who dwelling in the soul” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.6.7.30^[3]). Here,^[4] any activity in connection with the creation of names and forms being impossible on the part of a mere part (viz. the individual soul), the term ‘individual soul’ refers to Brahman, the Whole, acting for the good of the part. Hence the two words ‘jīvena’ and ‘ātmanā’ refer to the same object (viz. Brahman). The individual soul being subject to karmas is connected with these forms, and hence imperfections are possible on its part. But Brahman, though the creator of names and forms in accordance with the works of the individual souls, is not the enjoyer of their fruits, and as such the stated imperfections can never pertain to Him. Hence Brahman is possessed of a two-fold characteristic.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Interpretation different, viz. “For (Brahman is) without form (i.e. nirākāra) only (and not both sākāra and nirākāra), because of the primariness of that (viz. of the texts teaching that Brahman is formless)”. That is, the texts which attribute forms to Brahman are not the main purport of Scripture, since they simply enjoin meditation, and do not set forth the real nature of Brahman.^[5]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

Interpretation different, viz. “For (Brahman is) without form indeed, because He is the principal (being).^[6]

After this sūtra, Bhāskara reads an additional sūtra, not found in the commentaries of others, which is as follows: “Asthūlam aṇanvahrasvam-adīrgham-aśabdam asparśam-arūpam-avyayam”, meaning: “(Brahman is) non-gross, non-fine, non-short, non-long, without sound, without touch, without form, immutable”. Hence such a nirākāra or formless Brahman is to be worshipped, and not the sākāra Brahman.^[7]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He begins a new adhikaraṇa here concerned with the question of the form of Brahman (four sūtras). Hence the sūtra: “For (Brahman is) without a form, because that (viz. the form) is the chief (viz. Brahman)”. That is, Brahman is formless in the sense that He has not the form, but is the form itself, since the body of Brahman is identical with Brahman Himself.^[8]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Not quoted by others.

[2]:

Vide Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.3.2—“Anena jīven-ātmanā anupraviśya nāma-rūpe vyākaravāṇi”.

[3]:

P. 1074, line 18.

[4]:

Viz. in the above passage—Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.3.2.

[5]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.2.14, p. 726.

[6]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.2.14, p. 166.

[7]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.2.15. p. 166.

[8]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.2.14, p. 59, Chap. 3.