Brahma Sutras (Shankara Bhashya)

by Swami Vireshwarananda | 1936 | 124,571 words | ISBN-10: 8175050063

This is the English translation of the Brahma-sutras including the commentary (Bhashya) of Shankara. The Brahma-sutra (or, Vedanta-sutra) is one of the three canonical texts of the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy and represents an early exposition the Vedantic interpretation of the Upanishads. This edition has the original Sanskrit text, the r...

Chapter I, Section IV, Adhikarana I

Adhikarana summary: The Mahat and Avyakta of the Katha Upanishad do not refer to the Sankhyan categories

In the last topic of the previous section, by a reference to the well-known individual soul, Brahman, which is not so well known, was taught. So the opponent in this topic holds that the reference to Avyakta in the text to be quoted should be taken to deal with the well-known Sankhyan category.

 

Brahma-Sutra 1.4.1: Sanskrit text and English translation.

आनुमानिकमप्येकेषामिति चेत्, न, शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेः, दर्शयति च ॥ १ ॥

ānumānikamapyekeṣāmiti cet, na, śarīrarūpakavinyastagṛhīteḥ, darśayati ca || 1 ||

ānumānikam—That which is inferred (i.e. the Pradhana); api—also; ekeṣām—in som (recensions of the texts); iti cet—if it be said; na—no; śarīra-rūpaka-vinyasta-gṛhīteḥ—because it is mentioned in a simile referring to the body; darśayati—(the Sruti) explains; ca—too.

1. If it be said that in some (recensions of the Vedas) that which is inferred (i.e. the Pradhana) (is) also (mentioned), (we say) no, because (the word ‘Avyakta’ occurring in the Katha Upanishad) is mentioned in a simile referring to the body (and means the body itself and not the Pradhana of the Sankhyas); (the Sruti) too explains (it).

An objection is again raised here by the Sankhyas that the Pradhana is also based on scriptural authority, for some Sakhas (Vedic recensions) like the Katha Sakha (school) contain expressions wherein the Pradhana seems to be referred to:

“Beyond the Mahat (Great) there is the Avyakta (Undeveloped), beyond the Undeveloped is the Purusha (Being)” etc. (Kath. 1 . 3. 11).

The word ‘Avyakta’ they say, here refers to the Pradhana. Because the words ‘Mahat’, ‘Avaykata’, and ‘Purusha’, which occur in the same order as mentioned in the Sankhya philosophy, occur in the text, and so they are recognized to be the same categories of the Sankhyas.

This Sutra after raising this objection refutes it thus: The word ‘Avyakta’ is used in connection with a simile referring to the body, and does not refer to the Pradhana. In that word we recognize something mentioned in an earlier text.

“Know that the soul is the rider of the chariot and the body the chariot. Consider the intellect to be the charioteer and the mind the reins. The senses, they say, are the horses, and their roads are the sense-objects” etc. (Kath. 1. 3. 3-4).

All these things that are referred to in these verses are to be found in the following:

“The objects are superior to the senses, the mind is superior to the objects, the intellect is superior to the mind, the Mahat is superior again to the intellect, the Avyakta is superior to the Mahat, and the Purusha is superior to the Avyakta. Nothing is superior to the Purusha,” etc. (Kath. 1. 3. 10-11).

Now compare these two quotations. The senses, mind and intellect, mentioned in the earlier texts, are to be found in these later texts. The Atman of the earlier texts is denoted by the ‘Purusha’ of the later ones. The Mahat of the later texts mean the cosmic intellect and so is included in the intellect of the earlier texts, where it is used in a comprehensive sense to include both the individual and cosmic intellects. What remains is only the body in the earlier texts, and Avyakta in the later texts; and so Avyakta means the body here and not the Pradhana. We shall not be justified in interpreting a Sruti according to Sankhyan technicalities. For the purpose of recognition a comparison should be made not with the Smriti, but with similar passages of the Sruti itself, like those cited above.

 

Brahma-Sutra 1.4.2: Sanskrit text and English translation.

सूक्ष्मं तु तदर्हत्वात् ॥ २ ॥

sūkṣmaṃ tu tadarhatvāt || 2 ||

sūkṣmaṃ—Subtle; tu—but; tadarhatvāt—because it can be properly so designated.

2. But the subtle (cause of the body is meant by the term ‘Avyakta’) because it can be properly so designated.

An objection is raised. As the body is gross and developed, how can it be referred to by the term ‘Avyakta’ (Undeveloped) ? The answer is, here, not the gross body but the causal substance, i.e. the five uncompounded elements out of which the body is built, is meant. They, being subtle and not fully manifest and also being beyond sense perception, can be properly designated by the term ‘Avyakta’ (Undeveloped). It is also a common thing to denote the effect by the cause and hence indirectly the gross body is referred to here. “Mix the Soma with the cow (i.e. milk)” (Rig Veda 9. 46. 4).

 

 

Brahma-Sutra 1.4.3: Sanskrit text and English translation.

तदधीनत्वादर्थवत् ॥ ३ ॥

tadadhīnatvādarthavat || 3 ||

tadadhīnatvāt—On account of its dependence; arthavat—is fitting.

3. On account of its dependence (on the Lord), it fits in (with our theory).

It may be said that if a subtle causal condition of the gross world is thus admitted, it is as good as accepting the Pradhana. This Sutra makes the difference clear. While the Pradhana of the Sankhyas is an independent entity, the subtle causal condition admitted here is dependent on the Supreme Lord. Such a causal condition has necessarily to be admitted, for without that the Lord cannot create. It is the potential power, the causal potentiality inherent in Brahman. It is Nescience. That explains why, when one’s ignorance is destroyed. by Knowledge, there is no possibility of that liberated soul getting into bondage again. About this ignorance you can neither say that it is nor that it is not; it is an illusion and so it is reasonably called undeveloped (Avyakta). This ignorance or creative power cannot create of itself without the instrumentality of the Lord. The illusion of a snake in a rope is not possible merely through ignorance without the rope. So also the world cannot be created merely by ignorance without the substratum, the Lord. Hence it is dependent on the Lord. Yet the Lord is not in the least affected by this ignorance, even as the poison does not affect the snake which has it. “Know then Prakriti is Maya and the great Lord the ruler of Maya” (Svet 4. 10).  So the Avyakta is a helper, as it were, to Iswara in His creation, and hence such an Avyakta dependent on the Lord is significant and has to be admitted, says the Sutra.

 

Brahma-Sutra 1.4.4: Sanskrit text and English translation.

ज्ञेयत्वावचनाच्च ॥ ४ ॥

jñeyatvāvacanācca || 4 ||

jñeyatvāvacanāt—Because it is not mentioned (as something) to be known; ca—and.

4. And because it is not mentioned (that the Avyakta) is to be known (it cannot be the Pradhana of the Sankhyas).

Liberation, according to the Sankhyas, results when the difference between the Purusha and the Avyakta (Prakriti) is known. Hence the Avyakta, with them, is to be known. But here there is no question of knowing the Avyakta, and as such it cannot be the Pradhana of the Sankhyas.

 

Brahma-Sutra 1.4.5: Sanskrit text and English translation.

वदतीति चेत्, न, प्राज्ञो हि प्रकरणात् ॥ ५ ॥

vadatīti cet, na, prājño hi prakaraṇāt || 5 ||

vadati—Does state; iti cet—if it be said; na—no; prājñaḥ—inelligent self; hi—for; prakaraṇāt—from the context.

5. If it be said (that the Sruti) does state (that the Avyakta has to be known and therefore it is the Pradhana); (we say) no, for (it is) the intelligent (Supreme) Self (which is meant), since that is the topic.

“He who has perceived that which is without sound, without touch . . . beyond the Mahat (Great) and unchangeable, is freed from the jaws of death” (Kath. I. 3. 15).

The Sankhyas hold that in this text the Sruti says that the Pradhana has to be known to attain Freedom; for the description given of the entity to be known tallies with the Pradhana, which is also beyond the Mahat. The Sutra refutes this saying that by Avyakta, the one beyond the Mahat (Great) etc., the intelligent (Supreme) Self is meant, as that is the subject-matter of that section.

 

Brahma-Sutra 1.4.6: Sanskrit text and English translation.

त्रयाणामेव चैवमुपन्यासः प्रश्नश्च ॥ ६ ॥

trayāṇāmeva caivamupanyāsaḥ praśnaśca || 6 ||

trayāṇām—Of three; eva—only; ca—and; evaṃ—thus; upanyāsaḥ—introduction; praśnaḥ—question; na—and;

6. And thus the question and elucidation with reference to three only (of which the Pradhana is not one) (is consistent).

In the Katha Upanishad Nachiketas asks Yama three questions only, viz. about the fire (sacrifice), the individual soul, and the Supreme Self. The Pradhana is not mentioned. So we cannot expect Yama to go out of his way and treat of the Pradhana, which has not been inquired into.

 

Brahma-Sutra 1.4.7: Sanskrit text and English translation.

महद्वच्च ॥ ७ ॥

mahadvacca || 7 ||

mahadvat—Like Mahat; ca—and.

7. And like Mahat (the word ‘Avyakta’ does not refer to any Sankhyan category).

The Mahat according to the Sankhyas means the first-born, the cosmic intelligence; but in the Vedic texts it is associated with the word ‘Self’. Passages like “The Mahat (Great) is superior to the intellect” (Kath. 1 . 8 . 10), clearly show that it is used in a different sense from the intellect and refer to the .Self in different aspects. Similarly though the Avyakta in the Sankhya philosophy may mean the Pradhana or Prakriti, in the Sruti texts it means something different. So the Pradhana is not based on scriptural authority but is a mere inferred thing.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: