Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.22

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.22 by Roma Bose:

“For (the text) denies the so-muchness resulting from what has been previously declared, and after that speaks (of Brahman as limitless) once more.”

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

On the doubt, viz. whether the text: “Not so, not so”.(Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6^[1]) denies the corporeal and the incorporeal forms, mentioned previously in the passage: “There are, verily, two forms of Brahman, the corporeal and incorporeal” (Bṛh, 2.3.1^[2]), or denies simply Brahman’s so-muchness resulting from His connection with the previously mentioned forms—the suggestion being that it denies the forms of Brahman—we reply:

It “denies” only “the so-muchness resulting from what has been previously mentioned”. “After that,” “once more”^[3] the concluding portion of the text says: “For there is nothing higher than this—hence (it is called) ‘not so’” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6^[4]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been stated above that Brahman is possessed of a two-fold characteristic. Now the world is real, the world which consists of the sentient and the non-sentient, which is not known through any other means of knowledge, which is knowable from Scripture alone as a form of Brahman on account of having Brahman for its soul, and which is not deniable by such texts like: ‘This is not a form of Brahman.’ Now, it may be thought that Brahman, who possesses the world as His form and is endowed with infinite, inconceivable, auspicious qualities and powers, becomes limited owing to His connection with the limited world. The author here denies this.

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, having begun thus: “There are, verily, two forms of Brahman, the corporeal and the incorporeal” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.1), and having exhibited the particular forms of saffron-colour and the rest thus: “The form of this person, verily, is like the saffron-colour” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6), the text goes on to record: “Hence, now, there is the teaching: ‘Not so, not so”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6). Among these, the corporeal, i.e. the three elements: fire, water and food; the incorporeal, i.e. the two elements: air and ether^[5]; as well as the particular forms of the saffron-colour and the rest^[6] have been mentioned before. Here the doubt is whether the text: “Not so, not so” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6) denies the above-mentioned group of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms of Brahman, or denies Brahman’s so-muchness, resulting from His possession of the above-mentioned group of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms. Here on the suggestion: It denies the group of the corporeal and the incorporeal forms,—we reply: The text: “Not so, not so” “denies” Brahman’s so-muchness, resulting from His connection with those corporeal and incorporeal forms which have been mentioned previously. The word “for” shows that no things, sentient and non-sentient, are capable of being denied—-things which, on account of having Brahman for their soul, are His forms, as established by hundreds of scriptural passages, such as: “There are, verily, two forms of Brahman, the corporeal and the incorporeal” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.1), “Everything has that for its soul” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.7; 6.9.4, etc.), “All this, verily, is Brahman” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.1), “By proving the enjoyer, the object enjoyed and the Mover, all has been said. This is the threefold Brahman” (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 1.12) and so on. The phrase: “And after that speaks once more” shows that Brahman is not limited by so-muchness. That is, “after that” or after denying the so-muchness of Brahman, “once more”, i.e. again, the concluding portion of the text “speaks” of Brahman as not limited by so-muchness.

Or else (an alternative explanation): the concluding portion of the text speaks of something more than the previously mentioned corporeal and incorporeal forms thus: “For there is nothing higher than it, hence (it is called) ‘not so “Now (its) name is ‘the real of the real’. The vital-breaths, verily, are real. It is their real” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6). Its meaning is as follows: It is not to be said that the real nature of Brahman is not other ‘than it i.e. than what has been mentioned above. Brahman is higher than it, unlimited by so-muchness, without an equal or a superior. There is also a ‘name’ for Brahman, the highest of all. The same text states it thus: ‘the real of the real’. Anticipating the enquiry: The real of which reals? the text says: ‘The vital-breaths, verily, are real; it is their real’. ‘The vital breaths’ are the individual souls having the vital-breaths, and they do not, like the ether and the rest, undergo any change of nature at the time of creation, hence they are ‘real’. Just as the Vedas, though eternal, arise from Brahman, in accordance with the maxim of a person who was asleep but has arisen now,^[5] He being the cause of all,—so the individual souls, too, being under the influence of karmas, come to have births, etc., i.e. undergo changes in the form of contraction or expansion of their knowledge. But the Supreme Brahman is not subject to any such changes. For this reason, and also because He is the whole, He is the real of them too,—this is the sense. For this very reason, Scripture says: “The eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious” (Kaṭha, 5,13; Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.13).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

Interpretation diametrically opposed: The question is, what exactly is denied by the text “Not so, not so”. Does it deny the two forms of Brahman merely, or also Brahman Himself possessing those forms? It may be suggested: As none among these is specially mentioned as the object of negation here, so both these are negated. The term ‘not so’ is repeated twice, which also seems to imply that there are two objects of negation, the universe and Brahman. Or, Brahman alone is negatived here, since it being beyond the eyes and the mind, may very well be non-existent.

The answer to this view is as follows: The two-fold negation of the forms of Brahman and Brahman Himself is not possible. Negation implies something positive and existent on the basis of which the thing is set at naught, e.g. the snake is denied to be in the rope and so on. Hence absolute and universal negation is impossible and meaningless. Therefore, Brahman cannot be negatived. As such the text “Not so, not so” denies only the two previously mentioned corporeal and incorporeal forms of Brahman and thereby depicts the real nature of Brahman, viz. His absolute freedom from all differences. If it be said: Why should Scripture first designate these forms and then deny them?—the answer is that Scripture never actually proves that Brahman possesses these forms, but simply mentions them as the views of the ignorant for the purpose of showing their hollowness later on. Moreover, the repetition of the words ‘not so’ simply refers to the two forms separately. Thus according to Śaṅkara, there are two alternative explanations of the sūtra:

(1) Having first designated Brahman as “Not so, not so”, the text goes on to say once more: “There is nothing higher than it, hence (it is called) ‘Not so’”.

(2) (Or) there is no better designation of Brahman’s real nature than the text: “Not so”; and the text declares something more, viz. the name of Brahman.^[6]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

Interpretation same, but he does not begin a new adhikaraṇa here, but continues the same adhikaraṇa up to sūtra 25.

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

He also does not begin a new adhikaraṇa here, but continues the same topic of the meditation on Brahman in His aspect of non-difference, as pure existence and consciousness. According to Him in the text: “Not so, not so”, the first ‘not so’ denies the corporeal and the incorporeal forms of Brahman, i.e. His form as the elements; while the second ‘not so’ denies His Vāsanā-maya form, i.e. His form as the individual soul. Thus this text designates the pure, non-differenced form of Brahman, but by no means proves the non-existence of the world. Hence the sūtra: (“The text) denies the so-muchness of the topic of discussion (viz. Brahman) after that speaks (of Brahman) once more (as the Highest Being)”.^[7]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[2]:

Op. cit. This text occurs in Maitrī 6.3 as well.

[3]:

The word “bhūyaḥ” may mean both ‘once more’ and ‘something more’. It is not clear in which sense precisely Nimbārka understands it. Śrīnivāsa gives both the meanings, see Vedānta-kaustubha below.

[4]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[5]:

Vide Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.2-3.

[6]:

Vide Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6.

[7]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 1.3.28.

[8]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 3.2.22, pp. 737ff.

[9]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 3.2.23, p. 169.