Brahma-Sūtra 4.2.12

English of translation of Brahmasutra 4.2.12 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that on account of the denial, (we reply:) no, (that refers to the going out of the sense-organs) from the embodied soul, for (the text) of some (makes this) clear.”

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

If it be objected that on account of the denial, viz. “Now, he who does not desire, who is without desire, who is free from desire, who has attained his desire, who desires for the self,—his sense-organs do not go out” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.6^[1]), a knower’s departure from the body is not justifiable,—we reply: There is no such contradiction, since that this is a denial of the departure of the sense-organs “from the embodied soul”, the topic of discussion, is clear from the reading “of some”, viz. “From him the vital-breaths do not depart” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.7.2, 8^[2]). Scripture denies their departure from that alone.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: Under the aphorism: “And the same up to the beginning of the path” (Brahma-sūtra 4.2.7) it has been established that a knower, too, departs from the body. That does not stand to reason, “On account of the denial” of a knower’s departure from the body,, in the scriptural text: “Now he who does net desire, who is without desire, who is free from desire, who has attained Ms desire, who desires for the self,—his sense-organs do not go out. Having become Brahman alone, he enters into Brahman” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.6) and so on.

We reply: “No”. This denial is not a denial of the departure of the soul from the body. Having referred to the embodied soul, the topic of discussion by the word ‘him’ in. the text: “Now, he who does not desire”, the text goes on to deny the departure of those sense-organs “from the embodied soul” by the clause: “His sense-organs do not go out”, since by the sixth case ‘his’, the body, which is not mentioned before as connected with the sense-organs is not referred to. By the texts: “By that light, this soul goes out” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.2), “He going out, the vital-breath goes out after him” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.2), “He assumes another newer and a more auspicious form” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.4) and so on, it is suggested that during the state of transmigratory existence, the sense-organs of the embodied soul depart in order that there may be the origin of a new body,—and it is this that is denied here. Further, it is suggested that at the time of the knower’s departure from the final body, set up so long by the works the effects of which have already begun, he is separated from the sense-organs,—and this too is denied. The sense is that these sense-organs accompany him as he proceeds through the path of gods, and are not separated from him prior to his attaining Brahman. In the reading “of some” branches, viz. “From him the sense-organs do not depart” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.7.2, 8), there is an explicit denial of the departure of the sense-organs from the embodied soul, mentioned as the topic of discussion thus: “He who is without desire, who is free from desire, who has attained his desire” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.7.2, 8), and indicated as an ablative by the fifth case-ending.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

He breaks it into two different sūtras: “Pratiṣedhāt..... śārīrāt” and “spaṣṭo..... ekeṣām”, and takes the first as the prima facie view, the second as the correct conclusion.^[3] Thus, he arrives at an exactly opposite conclusion to that of Nimbārka, viz. those who meditate on qualified Brahman, go out of their bodies and travel through the path of gods, and not higher knowers. Accordingly he takes this section, viz. sūtras 12-14^[4] as referring to higher knowers only. But Nimbārka, as we have seen, makes no such distinction; according to him both knowers and non-knowers go out, only they travel through different paths.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

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

[2]:

P. 1089, line 8. Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha, Baladeva I.e. the Kāṇva recension reads “tasya” which might have given rise to some misunderstanding. But the Mādhayandina recension reads “tasmāt” leaving no room for doubt.

[3]:

Pp. 937-38.

[4]:

Sūtra 12-13 according to Nimbārka.