Brahma-Sūtra 4.2.15

English of translation of Brahmasutra 4.2.15 by Roma Bose:

“Non-division, on account of declaration.”

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

Those subtle elements together with speech and the rest come to have “non-division”, i.e. essential identity, with the Highest “On account of the declaration”: “And their name and form are destroyed; it is simply called ‘a person’” (Praśna 6.5^[1]).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now, the question, ‘Of what kind is that merging’, is being considered.

On the doubt, viz. whether the merging of the subtle elements, united with the vital-breath which is accompanied by the sense-organs discarded by a knower, is of the form of conjunction, like that of speech and the rest with the mind and so on, or of the form of essential identity, like the merging of rivers in the sea,—if it be suggested: Of the form of conjunction alone, since the word ‘merges’ in the first clause: “Speech merges in the mind” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.6) is used everywhere as denoting‘conjunction’.—

We reply: Since speech and the rest have not the mind and the rest as their material causes, in their cases, ‘merging’ means conjunction only. But they have ‘non-division’ with Brahman, the universal cause, i.e. in this case, merging means essential identity. Why? “On account of declaration,” i.e. because Scripture, having designated the merging of the parts in the Highest Brahman thus: “So exactly, this seer’s sixteen parts, going towards the Person, disappear on reaching Him” (Praśna 6.5), goes on: “And their name and form are destroyed; it is called simply ‘a person’” (Praśna 6.5). Although there are seventeen parts in the subtle body, viz. the sense-organs like speech and the rest, the internal-organ, viz. the mind, five subtle essences and the vital-breath, yet in the above text, only sixteen are mentioned for designating the identity between the vital-breath and the subtle essence of touch. Hence, it is established that their merging in the Highest Self, the cause of the world, is of the form of essential identity.

Here ends the section entitled “Non-division” (7).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

As before, he takes this sūtra too as referring to the higher knower only. This is sūtra 16 in his commentary. Thus we find that according to him, only sūtras 12-16^[2] refer to the higher knower, while the rest of the sūtras to the lower knower.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṃkara, Baladeva, [Quoted by Baladeva?]

[2]:

Śūtras 12-15 according to Nimbārka’s numbering.