Brahma Sutras
Brahma Sutras
Swami Vireswarananda
SOME OPINIONS
Sanskrit Books with Text, '...Though bosed on the Bhashya, the book is nelther a translation nor even an abridgement of
the same;ai! that is importont in the Bhashya hos been embodied in the English commentary;
English Translation and Notes while no essentiol point hos been left out, o few of the pregnant hints scattered throughout the
Bhashya have been elaborated in the commentary;the inclusion of the exposition of Adhyasa,
rorely to be found even in Sanskrit workofthis class, has added to tiie worth ofthe book and the
insertion ofthe gist ofAdhikaranas,to lts usefulness/
The Brihadaranyako Uponlshad —The Modern Review
Translated by Swami Madhavonanda
With the Commentary of Shankarachoryo '...reodable and clear and,so far as we have examined it, quite reliable...and students will be
groteful forthe help itaffords them in understanding the Adhyasa Bhashya,which isasdifficult
as it is importont.'
The Message of the —The Hindu
Brihadaranyako Upanishad
by Swami Ranganathananda 'Such on English tronslotion of o highly phllosophicol work os the present one was badly
An Exposftion of the Brihadaranyako Upanishad needed...Gives o foithful summary ofthe arguments of Shonkarochoryo's commentary on the
in the Light of Modem Thought and Modem Needs Sutras...without in ony woy detrocting hom the strength of clority of the originol exposition.
The author hos occomplished his tosk in a most prciseworthy monner.' 1^1 n
—Bomboy Chronicle O
Minor Upanishads
Translated by Swami Madhovananda To me it is on outstanding specimen of Indien scholarship conceived with greot clority in its ë- &
(Paramahamsa, Atma, Amritabindu, Tejabindu, scheme of presentotion, ond executed with painstoking fidelity to tradition. 11 should prove to be
Sarva, Brahma, Aruneyi and Kaivalya Upanishads) an involuable oddition to the librory of anyone interested in the stody of Vedic truths. I wos
porticulorly interested in your hondling of Shonkaro's convincing views on superimposition.
...I should liketocongratuloteyouon the book'sexceilentformat...superior to ony bookfrom
jivon Mukti Viveka
on Indian Press which I have upon myshelves.'
—Homish McLaurin, Writer on Eostern Philosophy, Colifornia, U.S.A.
of Swami Vidyaranya
Translated by Swami Mokshadananda
? 145
788185 301952
BRAHMA-SUTRAS
With text,Word-for-Word Translation,
English Rendering,Comments according to
the Commentary ofSri Sankara and Index
Swami^^reswarananda
yiBvaita Asdramo-
(PUBLICATION DEPARTMENT)
5 DEHI ENTALLY ROAD • KOLKATA 700 014
Published by
Swami Tattwavidananda
Adhyaksha, Advaita Ashmma
Mayavati, Champawat, Uttarakhand, Himaiayas
from its Publication Department, Kölkata
Email: mail@advaitaashrama.org
Website: www.advaitaashrama.org
© AU Rights Rëserved
Twelfth Reprint, June 2014
2M2C
ISBN 978-81-85301-95-0
Printed in India at
Trio Process
Kolkata 700 014
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
AdHYASA OR SUPBRniPOSITION
Chaptbr I
Section i 17
Section n 58
Section m 82
Section iv 116
Chaptbr II
Section i 142
Section n 174
Section ni 209
Section iv 246
Chaptbr III
Section i 262
Section n 283
Section m 315
Section rv 373
CONTENTS
Ghapter IV
THE SUTRAS
g;5f II
"People, learned in Sütra literature, say that a Sütra
should be concise and unambig^ous, give the essence
of the arguments on a topic hut at the same time deal
with all aspects of the question, be free from repetition
and faultless." Though this definition states what a
Sütra ought to be, in practice, however, the desire for
brevity was carried to such extremes that most part
of the Sütra literature is now unintelligible, and this is
particularly so with respect to the Vedanta-Sütras
which has consequently given rise to divergent systems.
There was Sütra literature in every branch of Indo-
Aryan knowledge which had become cumbrous through
centuries and required systematization. The authors
of these Sütras, as we see, are not the founders of the
thought or systems they propounded, but are mere
systematizers of the thought developed on the subject
by successive generations of thinkers for centuries. The
thought of these Sütras was much deyeloped by later
thinkers and even modified by them, though all of them
disdaimed any originality in it, dedaring that they were
merely interpreting the Sütras. This was specially the
case with respect to the philosophical Sütras- All these
INTRODUCTION v
lA
viii BRAHMA-SÜTRAS
3
xl BRAHMA-SUTRAS
will (4. 4. 8), while this power is not negated in the case
of souls which get identified with ïévara according to
Sütra 4. 4. 5 and 7.
That the SütrakSra makes a distinction between the
attainment of Liberation by the knowledge of the
nirguna Brahman and that by the knowledge of the
saguna Brahman, is dear from Sütra 4.1.19, where
he makes no reference to any going forth in the case of ^
a JJvanmukta, but simply says that on the exhaustion
of the Prürabdha Karma he attalns Brahman and this
is also in keeping with texts like Br. 4.4.6 and especially
Ch. 6.14.2 where it is dearly stated that his merging in
Brahman is delayed just as long as the body lasts. But
going to Brahmajoka by "the path of the gods",is also
a kind of Liberation, for from there the soul does not
return to this mortal world, but gets merged in
Brahman at the end of the cyde together with Brahmü,
as stated in Sütra 4.3.10. As the author is concemed in
this section witb the result of Upüsanüs, viz Liberation,
he describes the result of the knowledge of the nirguna
Brahman in Sütras 1-7 and from 8-22 tl^e result of the
knowledge of the saguna Brahman. If, as according to
Rdmünuja and Nimbürka, there is no such distinction
at all, but the description is of one kind of Liberation
only, then when it is said in Sütra 4.4.5 that the released
soul attains a nature like that of Brahman, there is no
further necessity saying that it can create at will all
objects of enjoyment. Moreover, if being free from sin,
old age etc. (Ch. 8.1.5) are qualities of the soul as well
as of the*Lord, then they will cease to be the dehning
characteristic of the Lord. In this case the objection
raised in the first part of Sütra 1.3-19 will not be
answered by the second half of the Sütra. The Sütra
I BRAHMA-SUTRAS
go by" 5v. 3.8); "He comes not to death- who sees that
ene". Pilgrimages, austerities, worship and charity—
these by themselves, without Knowledge, cannot help us
to attain Liberation. Their utility lies only in purifying
our mind (Citta^uddhi), cleansing it of all worldliness,
and thus making it fit to comprehend the Truth. When
Brahman is realized this phenomental world disappears
automatically, without any further effort on the part of
the individual. Knowledge of Brahman being thus the
only way to Liberation, an inquiry into Brahman through
the study of the Brahma-Sütras is absolutely necessary.
^ahkara's explanation of the world as an illusion
has given his philosophy the name of Mayavada or
Anirvacaniya Khyativada. It is also known as
Vivartavada, the doctrine of the apparent modification
of Brahman into this phenomenal world, as opposed
to Parinamavada or the doctrine of the actual
modification of Brahman into this phenomenal world,
as held by some other schools of Veddnta like the
Vi^istSdvaitavada of Riimèriuja.
Sahkara anticipated that this method of explaining
the phenomenal world would raise a protest from the
various other schools of his time. So at the beginning
of his commentary on the Brahma-Sütras, he writes a
masterly introduction, which is well known as the
AdhySsa Bhasya or the section dealing with super-
imposition, wherein he establishes superimposition as
a statement of fact and not a mere hypothesis. He
starts with the objections that can possibly be raised
against his theory of superimposition and then refutes
them. He says: It is well known that the subject and
the object, which have for their sphercs or contents
the notions of T and 'Thou' respectively, and which
4 BRAHMA-SUTRAS
SUPERIMPOSmON DEFINED
DEFINmON OF SUPERIMPOSITION
ACCORDING TO OTHER SCHOOLS
Section I
arrot n \ ii
arr Now gjgf; therefore the inquiry (into
the real nature) of Brahman.
ïRr: 11 ^ II
Origin etc. {i.e. sustenance and dissolution)
SRq- of this (world) iRf; from which.
II ^ II
^O -N
II V II
II K II
ii vs ii
II ^ II
II ^ n
II \o II
II U M
ïï, tl II
\
1.1.15] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 41
II II
II U II
That which has been referred to in the
Mantra portion the very same «gr moreover
is sung.
15. Moreover that very Brahman which has
been referred to in the Mantra portion is sung
(in this Brahmana passage as the tail).
42 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [1.1.15
M II
II ^V9 II
II II
3ilFT^ =E[ ii h ii
In this sifir its (the Jiva's) also
mergence as that teaches.
!• II
\
1.1.20] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 45
11 W
II II
3l?r 11 II
n II
il It
II II
ïf, II ^\9 II
n ^«5 II
11 II
u n
^ 11 W
Section II
««PI II \ II
?r ii ^ ii
II VL »l
II ^ II
From the Smrti xf also.
6. From the Smrti also (we learn that the
individual soul is different from the one referred
to in the text under discussion).
II V9II
^f^^tïïsiïRrfrfir ii ii
^ li e. 11
M+<y|M II II
8
66 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [1.2.10
Topic 3: The two thal have entered the cavity of the
heart are the individual soul and Brahman.
^ MpltLNIrHini UH
cavity (of the heart) the two that
have entered STFcirrïft are the two selves (individual
and Supreme) indeed because it is so seen.
II II
From the specification ^ and.
12. And from the (distinctive) qualities (of
the two mentioned in subsequent texts).
The texts subsequent to the one under discussion
mention the characteristics of the two that have
entered the cavity of the heart, which show that these
are the individual soul and Brahman. 'Know that the
soul is the charioteer" etc. (Ka. 1.3.3). and "He attains
the end of the journey, that supreme state of Visnu"
(Ibid. 1. 3. 9), where the two are mentioned as the
attainer and the goal attained, i.e. as the Jiva and
Brahman. In a previous passage also the two are spoken
of as the meditator and the object of meditation. "The
sage relinquishes joy and sorrow, having realized by
meditation...that effulgent One...seated in the heart"
{Ihid. 1. 2. 12).
li II
II II
^ II II
M M
snxHlWt, II I'
The Ruler within in the gods etc.
on account of lts qualities being men-
tioned.
ïï ^ II H H
II II
n ii
II RX II
ïï hm^ II II
ara" For the same reason q- (is) net deity
^ element ^ and.
27. For the same reason (Vaiévanara) is not
the deity (fire) or the element (fire).
For the same reason—as stated in the previous Sütra.
n n
II ^O
Section III
II ^ II
II ^ II
q Not <H^q|iHT what is inferred (Pradhana) aicRr-
owing to want of any term indicating it.
3. (The abode of heaven etc.) is not what is
inferred (i.e. Pradhana), owing to want of any
term indicating it.
The abode of heaven etc. cannot be the Pradhana,
for there is no term indicative of it in* the text, as we
have *Self' indicative of Brahman. There are no terms
whatsoever referring to inert matter, hut on the other
hand there are terms indicating intelligence: "Who
knows all, understands all" etc. (Mu. 1. 1.9).
51!«l^^ II Vil
qrui^The living or individual soul q also (qnot). :
I
4. (Nor) also the individual soul.
1.3.6] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 85
The word *not' has to be inferred from the previous
Sütra.
Nor is it the individual soul, though it is an intelli
gent principle and can therefóre be denoted by the
word 'Sel£'; for it is impossible to conceive the indi
vidual soul as omniscient and as the resting-place of
the whole universe.
11 K n
II ^11
II ^ II
Because the qualities are appropriate
^ and.
II II
II nu
8Fzr-iTR-5in^; Because the qualities of any other than
Brahman have been negated ^ also.
12. And because the qualities of any other
than Brahman have been negated (by the éruti).
1.3.1S] BRAHMA^UTRAS 91
AU other qualities referred to in the text, as, for
example, seeing, hearing, thinking, knowing, etc. (Br.
<3.8.11) point to a conscious principle and therefore
negate the Pradhdna etc. Nor can it be the individual
soul, which is not free from limiting adjuncts as the
Aksara is described.
II ?>^ ll
II II
II II
ïï,. II II
Because of the reference to the other
(i.e. the individual soul) he (the individual soul)
^ if it be said q no srgrïjqTcr on account of
impossibility.
96 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [1-318
18. Because o£ the reference lo the other
li.e. the individual squI in a complementary
passage) i£ it be said that he (the individual soul)
(and not Brahman is meant by the 'small Akasa ),
(we say) no, on account o£ the impossibility (ot
such an assumption).
"Now that being, the individual soul (Jiva) in deep
sleep, which having risen above this earthly body etc.
(Ch. 8.3.4). Since in this complementary passage the
individual soul is referred to, one may say that the
•small Akaéa' of Ch. 8. 1. 1 is also the individual souL
It cannot be; for a comparison is made in Ch. 8. 1. 3
between the 'small Aka^a' and the ether, which would
be absurd i£ by 'small Akaéa* Jiva were meant, because
there can be no comparison between a thing that is
limited like the individual soul and the all-pervading
ether. The attributes like 'free from evil' of this
Akiéa, referred to in the passage under discussion,
cannot be true of the individual soul. So Brahman is
meant in that passage.
mmWj II II
For a different purpose ^ and
reference.
^n U
II II
From the word ^cf itself measured.
100 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [1-3-24
24 From the very word ('Lord* by which it
is referred to in the text) (the being) measured
(by the size of the thumb is Brahman).
"The being of the size of a thumb, resides in the
centre of the body. (Knowing that) Lord of the past
and future, one does not seek to hide oneself any more.
This is That" (Ka. 2. 4. 12). The being referred to
is Brahman, because he is spoken of as the Lprd or
ruler of the past and future. It cannot be the individual
soul, though the limitation in size and residence in
the centre of the body by themselves might be more
applicable in its case. Moreover in reply to the request
of Naciketa who wanted to know Brahman, Yama
refers to this being of the size of a thumb thus: That
which you wanted to know is this."
II II
ïTJTïïft il II
Above them arfq also 5rK<l^"l: Bddarayana
because (it is) possible.
26. (Beings) above them (men) also (are
entitled to the study of the Vedas) because (it is)
possible (for them also to attain Knowledge
according to) Badarayana.
In Sütras 26-38 there is a digression from the main
topic in the Section. A doubt may arise from the
previous Sütra that as it is said that men alone are
entitled to the study of the Vedas, the gods are thereby
debarred. To remove this doubt that Sütra is given.
The gods are also entitled to it, according to
Bidarüyana. How? Because it is possible for them
also—since they too are corporeal beings—to have a
desire for Brahmaloka or for final illumination and
also to possess the necessary requisites (the four-fold
qualiffcation) for such illumination. In the Sruti also
we find Indra and other gods living the life of Brahma-
carya for attaining this knowledge of Brahman. For
instance, Ch. 8. 11. 3; also Tai. 3. 1, wherè the god
Varuna is said to have possessed that Knowledge which
he teaches to his son Bhrgu.
102 BRAHMASUTRAS [l.S.27
4>4wnf3f sf^srfipm^tNRT ii ^vs ii
r«|^q; Contradiction to sacrifices ^ if it
be said q* not assumption of many
(ferms) qqqra" because it is found (in the scriptures).
27. I£ it be said (that the corporeality of the
gods would involve) a contradiction to sao-ifices;
(we say) no, because we ftnd (in the scriptures)
the assumption (by the gods) of many (forms at
one and the same time).
If gods possess bodies, then it would not be possible
for one and thè same god to be present in sacrifices
perfprmed simultaneously at different places. This is
the objection, which is refuted by the latter part of the
Sütra on the ground that the gods, like the Yogis,
owing to their Yoga powers are capable of assuming
several forms (Kayav^ha) simultaneously. See Ch.
7. 26. 2. Again as a sacrifice consists in making offer-
ings by the sacrificer to some divinity, many persons
at the same time may make such offerings to a single
divinity, even as many persons can at the same time
salute a single person.
^ U 1'
With regard to (Vedic) words ^ if it be
said q no SRT: from these (words) because of
the creation from direct perception
and inference.
Md
II II
II II
ïr&qiPiq In Madhu Vidyi etc. aRfwcT on account
of the impossibility aRfsRnt disqualification
Jaimini (is of opinion).
31. On account of the impossibility (of the
gods) being qualified for Madhu Vidya etc.
Jaimini (is of opinion that the gods) are not
qualified (either for Up^an^ or for the know-
ledge of Brahman).
In many of the Up^sanis (devout meditations) a
person is askèd to meditate on the self of some god or
other. For example, in Madhu Vidyd one is to meditate
011 the sun as honey (something helpful). Such a
meditation will be impossible for the sun-god. Hence in
Upisan^s where one has to meditate on the self of
certain gods, these divinities themselves would naturally
be disqualified; for the same person cannot. be both
the object of meditation and the worshipper. So Jaimini
thinks that the gods are not qualified for these devout
meditations or for the knowledge of the supreme
Brahman.
1.S.SS] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 107
f| II II
The existence (of qualification) ^ but
(sage) Bidarayana(maintains) does exist because.
gRT5snm?r, ii m
^ Grief his frcT-aiH K w|W from hearing his
(the Rsi's) contemptuous words grfT that (grief)
owing to his approaching is referred to because.
II II
II II
^ sï^: II II
On the ascertainment of the absence
of that (Südrahood) ^ and sr^: from indination.
II II
On account of vibration.
II vo II
ii ii
11
114 BRAHMA-SÜTRAS [1.3.41
of the whole world of names and forms it cannot be
anything else but Brahman. Moreover, epithets like
'Infinite', 'Immortal', 'Self' also show that 'Aka^a' here
refers to Brahman.
II II
II II
Section IV
^5 II ^ II
Subtle ^ but because it cah be properly
so designated.
I) V II
lU II
II ^ II
Of three only ^ and tiqtT thns ^jqrqrïT: in-
troduction question ^ and.
II VS II
II ^ II
IK II
II \\
ïT II II
siïormt II
II II
'ïïnfe'TT By light q[%^ir of some 3Rrf^ 3n% food not
heing mentioned.
nO
ii ii
U II
n ?V9 II
On account of characteristics of
the individual soul and the chief PrSna not if
it be said that «t||^|^i( has already been explained.
f M<iHoiil^ld|W||Hl^ II n
SFimf For another purpose ^ but Jaimini
illMo'llWIMI'Wil^^ because of the question and elucidation
aïfq moreover thus some.
132 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [1.4.18
18. But (tliesage) Jaimini (thinks that the ref-
erence to the individual soul in the text) has
another purpose because of the question and
answer; moreover thus some (the Vajasaneyins)
(read in their recension).
Even the reference to the individual soul in the said
chapter of the KausitakT Upanisad has a different
purpose, and that is not to propound the individual
soul but Brahman by showing that the individual soul
is different from Brahman. The questions, "Where did
the person thus sleep? Where was he? Whence came he
thus back?" (Kau. 4.19) refer dearly to something
different from the individual soul. And so does the
answer (Ibid. 4.20) say that the individual soul is
merged in Brahman in deep sleep. The Brhadaranyaka
Upanisad, where also this conversation occurs, clearly
points out the individual soul by the term 'Vijnana-
maya', the person consisting of cognition, and distin-
guishes it from the supreme Self (Br 2.1.16-17).
Topic 6: The Self to be seen through hearing etc.
is Brahman.
II H II
^Hzr-3Tr?ingr On account of the connected meaning
of passages.
1,4.20] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 133
19. (The Self to be seen, to be heard, etc. is
Brahman) on account of the connected meaning
of the passages.
"The Self, my dear Maitreyï, should be realized—
should be heard of, rcflected on and meditated upon.
By the realization of the Self, my dear, through hearing,
reflection, and meditation, all this is known (Br
2.4.5). In this passage the supreme Self is referred to,
and not the individual soul. Why? In the whole section
Brahman is treated. It begins with Maitreyi's question
"Will wealth get me immortality?" and Yajnavalkya
answers that wealth, sacrifice, etc. will not obtain that
immortality. She then asks for 'that which will give her
immortality, and Yajnavalkya teaches her the know-
iedge of the Self; finally the section concludes with,
"Thus far goes immortality". Now immortality cannot
be gained by the knowledge of the individual soul, hut
only by the knowledge of the supreme Self or Brahman
Therefore Brahman alone is the subject-matter and It
alone is to be seen through hearing etc. Moreover, the
text quoted says that by the knowledge of the Self
spoken of there. everything is known, which clearly
connects the Self referred to with Brahman; for how
can the knowledge of a limited individual self give us
knowledge of everything?
II II
II II
II II
On account of the statement of will
(to create) ^ also.
24. Also on account of the statement of will
(to create on the part of the supreme Self, It is
the material cause).
II II
snriTi^: qrfTTOTfr ii ii
As It created It.self by undergoing
modihcation.
II II
snT^ïïrar cimTOT: ll w
By this all strr^irTcïT: are explained.
Section I
n \ II
There would result the defect
of leaving no scope for certain Smrtis ^ if it be
said ^ no because there
would result the defect of leaving no scope to some
other Smrtis.
•mHMrtsQ: li
>0 *
II
Of the others and : there being no
mention.
'ilïïJ MC^Tp: II ^ 11
By this ïflïr; the Yoga philosophy is (also)
refuted.
ïï \\ V II
fiRNrvTfgrFqr^T n ^ u
The reference (is) to the presiding
deities ^ but because of the special
characterization and the fact of being so presided.
5 II % II
Is seen ^ but.
6. But it is seen.
«T» II V9 II
3Rr?r Non-existent if it be said ^ no
for it is merely a negation.
7. If it be said (that the world, the effect, would
then be) non-existent (before creation), (we say)
no, for it IS merely a negation (without any basis).
If Brahman, which is inteUigent, pure, and without
quahties, is the cause of the world of an opposite
character, it follows that before creation the world was
non-existent, for Brahman was then the only existence.
Tlus means that something which was non-existing is
brought into existence, which is not accepted by the
2.1.8] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 149
II e II
II II
srfil öMi-(ceiiai: II II
By this fsTKTrqf^gT: not accepted by the wise
srfq- also öqrretfTclT: are explained.
12. By this (i.e. by the arguments against the
Samkhyas) (those other views"! also not accepted
by the wi.se (Hke Manu and others) are explained.
154 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [2.1.12
When the Sarhkhya philosophy, parts of which are
accepted by the wise as authoritative, has been refuted,
there is no question as regards the non-authoritativeness
of all doctrines based merely on reasoning like the
atomic theory of Kanada and non-existence as the
first Cause propounded by the Buddhists, which are
wholly rejected by the wise. They are also refuted by
these very arguments against the S&riikhyas, as the reas-
ons on which the refutation is based are the same.
II II
II II
On the existence ^ and is expericnced
158 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [2.1.13
II ^V9 II
II II
II U II
srqrfè ii ro ii
iT«n" As and SffTTfif the case of Pranas.
II II
II II
II II
ïf, II II
^ II II
trH id ^ II II
Possibility of the entire (Brahman
being modified) violation of the scnp-
tural statement that Brahman is without parts ^ or.
II II
f| II II
II II
^ II ||
II II
ïï U H
II 3^ II
As is seen in the world ^ but
mere pastime.
33. But (Brahman's creative activity) is mere
pastime, as is seen in the world.
Even as kings without any motive behind are seen to
engage in acts for mere pastime, or even as men breathe
without a purpose, for it is their very nature, or even as
children play out of mere^ fun, so also Brahman without
any purpose engages Itself in creating this world of
diversity. This answers the objection raised in the pre-
vious Sütra against Brahman's being the cause of the
world.
II II
ïï T, II II
Not want of distinction in work
^ if it be said no because of (the
world) being without a beginning.
35. If It be said (that is) not (possible) for want
of any distinction in work (before creation), (we
say) no, because of (the world) being without a
beginning.
Since before the first creation the individual soul
cannot pbssibly have had a previous existence, whence
172 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [2.1,35
comes the difference in the condition o£ beings in that
hrst creation, unless the Lord has caused it out of His
partiality? This objection is answered by the Sütra,
which says that creation is without a beginning and the
question of first creation cannot arise. It is like a seed
and its sprout. So the individual souls have always had
a previous existence and done good or bad deeds in
accordance with which their lot in a subsequent crea
tion is ordained by the Lord.
'Sf II II
Is reasonable ^ and arfq and is
seen s? also.
36. And (that the world is without a begin
ning) is reasonable and is also seen (from the
scriptures).
Reason tells us that creation must be without a
beginning. For if the world did not exist in a potential
state in the form of Saihskdras (impressions), then an
absolutely non-existing thing would be produced at
creation. In that case even liberated souls might be
rebom. Moreover people would be enjoying or suffering
without having done anything to deserve it—^an in-
stance of an effect without a cause, which is absurd. It
cannot be attributed to primeval ignorance, which,
being one, requires the diversity of individual past work
to produce varied results. The scriptures also posit the
existence of the world in former cydes in texts like
"The Lord devised the sun and moon as before"
(Rg-Veda, 10. 190. 3).
So partiality and cruelty cannot be imputed to the
Lord.
2,1.37] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 17J
Topic 13'. Brakman endowed with all aitributes
necessary for creation.
II II
From the possibility of all attributes
^ and.
37. And because all attributes (required for
the creation of the world) are .possible (only in
Brahman, It is the cause of the world).
This Sütra answers the objection that because
Brahman is attributeless It cannot be the material
cause of the world.
Objection: Material cause is that which undergoes
modification as the effect. Such a cause is generally sera
to possess attributes in the world. Therefore an attrib
uteless Brahman cannot be the material cause of the
world, as it goes counter to our everyday experience.
Answer: Though the material cause undergoes
change to produce the effect, yet this can take place in
two ways. An actual modification, as when milk tums
into curds, or an apparent modification due to igno-
rance, as when a rope is taken for a snake. Therefore
though in the attributeless Brahman an actual change is
impossible, yet an apparent modification is possible
owing to lts power of May^. Because of this power all
the attributes required in the cause for such a creation
are possible only in Brahman. Therefore Brahman is
the material cause of this world, not through actual
modification, but through apparent modification, and
It is also the efficiënt cause of the world. Therefore the
fact that Brahman is the cause of the world is established.
CHAPTER II
Section II
n % II
Because of the impossibility of design
^ and ^ not that which is inferred.
II ^ II
Of a tendency and.
II ^ II
U V li
ïï duiiRcid^ II ^ II
Elsewhere anrRTcf because of its absence =?r
and ïT not even as grass etc.
II ^ II
II V9 II
n =; ii
O
^ ^
II ^ II
II II
II u n
Even a.s the great and long or
from the short and the infinitesimal.
li II
In either case ;t is not activity
therefore negation of that.
2.2.12) BRAHM.A-SUTRAS 183
12. In either case {viz the Adrsta, the unseen
principie, inhering either in the atoms or in the
soul) the activity (of the atoms) is not (possible),
therefore the negation of that (viz of creation
through the combination of atoms).
If the world is created by the combination of atoms,
the question is, what caiises this combination? If it is a
seen cause, it is not possible before the creation of the
body. A .secn cause can either be an endeavour, or an
impact, or the like. Unless there is the connection of the
soul with the mind, there can be no endeavour on the
part of the soul, according to the Vaisesika assumption.
And since before creation there is no body and there
fore no mind, endeavour cannot take place. Similarly
with impact etc. If the cause is Adrsta (the unseen
principlè), does it inhere in the soul or in the atoms?
In either case, it cannot be the cause of the first motion
of the atoms; for this Adrsto is non-intelligent and so
cannot act by itself. If it is inherent in the soul, the soul
beihg then inert, there is no intelligence to guide this
Adrsta. If it is inherent in the atoms, it being always
present, a state of dissolution would be impossible, for
the atoms will be always active. Again, the soul is
without parts like the atoms, and so there is no possi-
bility of any connection between the soul and the atoms.
Consequently, if the Adrsta inheres in the soul, it
cannot influence the motion of the atoms not connected
with the soul. So in all cases original activity in the
atoms is not possible, and in the absence of that there
can be no combination of atoms, as the Vaisesikas say.
Consequently, the theory that the world is created by
the combination of atoms is. untenable.
184 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [2.2.13
II II
^ II II
^ II %% II
In either case ^ and because of
defects.
dlMRHI^I'^lrilnl*nQlHI II ?V9 II
<*IMr<ll^ld Because it is not accepted "q and
completely to be rejected.
2.2.18] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 187
II II
II H II
Because of successive causality
2.2.iy] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 189
II Ro II
At the time of the production of the
subsequent thing ^ and because the ante
cedent one has ceased to exist.
il I)
If non-existence (of cau.se) be assumed
contradiction of the proposition affqqr
otherwise simultaneitv.
% *
^ II II
II II
II II
^TRTcT:, II II
T Not 3RRT: from non-existence 3r|5Ec^ hccause
this is not seen.
wwIhuwIm ftrfè: II ^ II
Of the cffortless arfir even and tr^
thus attainment of the goal.
27. And tliiis (if existence sboiilcl spring from
non-existence, there would result) the attainment
of the goal even by the effortless.
Mere inactivity would result in the fulfilment of all
ends, for there would no longer be the necessity of the
cause, activity. Even fmal Freedom would result without
any effort.
II II
Owing to the difference of nature ^ and
•T is not like dreams etc.
^ 3ï?Tq"55®g: ii n
O ^
li 11
qc^r:, "N
II II
11 II
"O ^
nD
II H
*
II
3rfh«5R-3ï5«rr#: Rulership being impossible ^ and.
39. And on account of the rulership (of the
Lord) being impossible.
These schools infer the existence of the Lord, and say
that He directs the Pradh^a etc. as the potter does his
clay. But the PradhSna etc are not objects of perception
2.2.41J BRAHMA-SL'TRAS 205
like the clay. Hence the Lord cannot direct them, for
the iiiference must be strictly in accordance with
«bserved facts.
II Vo II
qi>7:oT^ As the senses if it be said ïï no
because of enjoyment etc.
^ II II
Subject to destruction 3Rr^9rr non-omnis-
cience^ or.
II li
Owing to the impossibility of origi-
nation.
ïï sfTOTT li II
;r ^ Nor from the agent qrscepT the instrument.
m dciMR|t)t|; II W II
If intelligence etc. exist ^ or
no warding off of that.
II II
Section III
ïï l^ar, 3r«r^: ii % w
va
3 n ^ II
There is 5 but.
2. But there is (a éruti text which states that
Akaéa is created).
The opponent in this Sütra antidpates a possible
objection against his arguments advanced in Sütra 1,
and explains it away in Sütra 3. The text referred to
here is, "From that Self (Brahraan) sprang Aküsa
(ether)" etc. (Tai. 2. 1).
sraWRTd II ^ II
II V II
II H tl
5 II \3 II
Extending to all effects whatsoever
g hut f^r^fTTT: separateness ëftV^RT as in the world.
7. But in all effects whatsoever (there is)
separateness, as (is seen) in the world.
The word 'but' refutes the idea that Aka^a is not
created. We see in the world that alh created things are
different from each other. A pot is different from a piece
of cloth and so on. In other words, everything which
has a separateness about it is areated. We cannot con-
ceive of a thing as separate from others and yet eternal.
Now Aka^a is distinct from earth etc., and hence it
cannot be etemal, but must be a created thing. It may
be objected that the Atman also is divided from ether
and so on and therefore It too is an effect. But that is
not possible, for all things are created from the Atman,
which is their Self, and so not separate from them;
therefore It is not an effect. The all-pervasiveness and
eternity of Ak^a are only relatively true; it is created
and is an effect of Brahman.
TTdRitcll II q II
By this tn^rfbRT air strretTTïr: is explained.
214 BRAHMA'SUTRAS [2.S.8
u e II
II II
3TN: 11 1% li
11. Water (is produced from fire).
216 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [2.3.11
5 II II
11 n
SPOT
ïT, II H
II II
II 11
^^ II U
5f: Intelligence for very reason.
11 II
O «A "N
^ II II
18
226 BRAHMA-SüTRAS [2.3.23
II II
ïï, U 1)
ÏÏTOT II II
II II
^^ II II
M^<N5<(lld II II
Separate on account of the teaching.
28. On account of the separate teaching (of
the éruti) (that the soul so pervades the body
owing to its quality of intelligence).
A further argument is given to establish the pro-
position of the last Sütra. The text, "Having by PrajuS
2.3.29] BRAHMASUTRAS 229
II II
^ ii w
fenfr n ii
There would result per-
232 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [2.3.32
petiial perception or non-perception limita-
tion of the power of either of the two ^ or else
otherwise.
II II
Agent 9Tr^|«7«tr<4ld in order that the scriptures
may have a meaning.
33. (The soul is) an agent, on account of
scriptural (injunctions) having a meaning on
that ground only.
The question as regards the size of the soul has been
settled. Now another characteristic of the soul is taken
up for discussion. The individual soul is an agent for
only on that basis do scriptural injunctions like "He
is to sacrifice" etc. have a sense. In these the Sruti
enjoins certain acts to be done by the agent and if the
soul be not an agent these injunctions would become
meaningless.
II II
On account of the Sruti teaching
wandering about.
34. And on account of (the Sruti) teaching
(its) wandering about.
"It, taking the organs, moves about as it pleases in
its own body" (Br. 2. 1. 18). This text which describes
the wandering of the soul in the dream state clearly
shows that it is an agent.
234 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [2.3-35
n II
ïf II II
On account of mention ^ also f^pmTTT
in respect of action ?r ^ if it were not so
the reference (would have been) of a different kind.
II II
il II
II H II
mJ =51 II Yo II
"irnj II II
From the Supreme Lord ^ but that
(agency) so dedares the $ruti.
II II
H II
II W II
srfq ^ II Vit 11
it: II II
^ II II
The Smrtis state and.
II II
and proliibitions
on account of the connection with the body
^ like light etc.
II II
srPTRT lUo II
A reflection only and.
11 U
3r|5i-3rfïTïraTtr There being no fixity about the unseen
principle.
51. There being no fixity about the unseen
principle (there would result that confusion for
those who believe in many souls, each all-per-
vading).
The Sariikhyas, the Vai^esikas and the Naiydyikas
accept a plurality of souls, each of which is all-prevad-
ing. Under such circumstances there cannot but result
a confusion of the fruits of action, for each soul is present
everywhere, in close proximity to whatever causes those
results in the shape of happiness or misery. Nor can this
confusion be avoided by introducing the Adrsta or
unseen principle, which is religious merit and demerit
acquired by the souls. According to the S^mkhyas it
inheres not in the soul, but in the Pradhana, which is
common to the souls, and as such there is nothing to
fix that a particular Adrsta operates in a particular
soul. According to the other two .schools the unseen
244 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [2.3.51
principle is created by the conjunction of the soul with
the mind; and since every soul is all-pervading and
therefore equally connected with all minds, here also
there is nothing to fix that a particular Adrsta belongs
to a particular soul. Hence that confusion of results is
inevitable.
U 11
II II
Section IV
ÏÏ5ÏÏ sirorr: ii \ w
)l ^ II
Secondary sense being impossible.
dcMI+i^a^Ti II ^ II
W That sn^ first being mentioned ^ and.
248 BRAHMA-SUTKAS [2.4.3
II II
Of the organ of speech (etc.) being
preceded by them (the elements).
4. On account of the pre-existence of that
{viz the elements) (before) the organ of speech
(etc).
"For truly, my boy, mind cousists of earth, the vital
force of water, the vocal organ of fire" (Ch. 6. 5. 4).
This text clearly shows that the organs etc. are products
of the elements, which in their turii spring from Brah
man. Hence they too are products of Brahman. Being
products of the elements, they are not separately
mentioned in texts dealing with the origin of things.
^RT, II K II
2.4.6] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 249
Seven being so known (from the scriptures)
on account o£ the specification ^ and.
5^55^ II c; II
2.4.9] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 251
II e II
3|+<«i^l-«^ n ^ II II
On account of (its) not being an instru
ment ^ and ^ not objection gqy because thus
(J5ruti) teaches.
II
11 II
3ior:
>9
Minute and.
5 dciWHdld; II II
Presiding over by Fire and others
256 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [2.4.14
yiUNdl, II U h
srniI^TWith the one possessing the Pranas (organs)
from the scriptures.
ÏÏFT II II
cT II II
^«5^: 11 II
18. On account of differentiating scriptural
texts.
II II
On account of the preponderance ^ but
that special name.
Section I
qniTRTm; II \ ii
With a view to obtaining a fresh body
goes enveloped (with subtle parts of
the elements) (so it is known) from the
question and answer'.
1. (The soul) goes (out of the body) enveloped
(with subtle parts of the elements) with a view to
5-1-2J BRAHMA-SÜTRAS 263
obtaining a fresh body; (so it is known) from the
question and answer (in the scripture).
The Sütra discusses whether in transmigration the
soul takes with it subtle parts the gross elements as
the seed, as it were, for the future body. The opponent
holds that it does not take them, for it is useless, be
cause the elements are easily available everywhere.
Moreover, in the absence of a definite opinion to the
contrary in the scriptures, we have to understand that
the soul does not take subde parts of the elements with
it. This Sütra refutes that view and says that the soul
does take with it subde parts of the elements; that this
is a fact is known from the question and answer that
occurs in the scriptures. "Do you know why in the fifth
oblation water is called man?" (Ch. 5. 3. 3). This is
the question, and the answer is given in the whole
passage which after explaining how the five oblations
in the form of Sraddhü (liquid oblations in subde
form), Soma, rain, food, and seed are ofiEered in the
five 'fires* (i.e. objects imagined to' be fires for the sake
of Upasanü)—the heavens, Parjanya (rain-god), earth,
man, and woman—ends, "For this reason is water in
the fifth oblation called man." From this we under
stand that the soul goes enveloped with water (same as
Sraddha). Moreover, though the elements are available
everywhere, yet the seeds for a future body are not so
easily available. Again the adjuncts of the individual
soul, viz the organs etc. which go with it {Vide Br. 4,
4, 2) cannot accompany it unless there is a materJal basis
igzRvTO II ^ II
264 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.1-2
On account of (water) consisting of
three clements ^ but account of the pre-
ponderance (of water).
U ^ II
ïï, li V II
afï'?ïTTf^ïT% Entering into fire etc. «r^; from the
O
ïï, ii ^ ii
On account of not being mentioned in
c %
^ IIV9 II
, =5r II c; II
II 5. II
5 II II
Good and evil work merely 5% thus
5 but BAdari.
272 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [S-IH
11. But (conduct) is merely good and. evil
work; thus (the sage) Badari (thinks).
This Sütra says that as a matter of fact there is no
difEerence between conduct and Karma in comnion
parlance, for people say of a person who performs
sacrifices etc. "That man practises righteousness,"
showing thereby that 'conduct* is used in the general
sense of action. Thus 'men of good conduct' means
those whose actions (Karma) ars priseworthy.
Therefore it is settled that those who go to heaven
performing sacrifices have residual Karma as the cause
of a new birth on earth.
II II
II II
qr Moreover ^ seven.
ïnrft II »
^ There arPr «ven ^ and ^ account
of his control there is no contradiction.
5 Mt»cir^ltT II ?V9 II
Of knowledge and work ^ thus 5 but
S-J-18] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 275
oïï account of their being the subject under
discussion.
ïï II Xc; II
276 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.1.18
Not in the third ^so it being seen.
^ II U II
Are recorded srfq also and in the
world.
II II
II II
Attainment of a similarity of
nature with them being reasonable.
ii
SRtllWf II V il
Into what is ruled by another
as in the previous cases lor so the Srad states.
24. (The descending soul enters) into what is
ruled by another (Jiva or soul) as in the previous
280 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.1.24
5ts?Rr 11 II
^f^nraflïïts«T II W II
I Connection with one who performs
the act of generation anr then.
II ^\9 II
Erom the womb body.
27. From the womb a (new) body (results).
282 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.1.27
Section II
rnnïdK' JïIKïIH II ^ II
fiftrfcTR Creator and some (the followers of
particular ^akhÉs of the Vedas) sons -etc.
and.
U ^ II
II ^ II
3.2.6] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 287
n % II
288 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.2.6
II V9 II
II e II
n lo II
In a swoon : partial attainment of the
state of deep-sleep as the only alternative left.
10. In a swoon (there is the) partial attainment
of the state of deep-sleep, as that is the only
alternative left.
The question of swoon is taken up for discussion.
There are only three states of a soul while living in the
body—^waking, dream, and deep-sleep. Its fourth state
is death. The condition of swoon cannot come in as a
fifth state, as no such state is known. So what is it?
Is it a separate state of the soul, or is it but one of these
states? It cannot be waking or dream, for there is no
consciousness or experience of anything. It is not deep-
sleep, for that gives happiness, which swoon does not.
Nor is it death, for the soul returns to life. So the only
alternative left is that in a swoon the soul partially
attains the state of deep-sleep, inasmuch as there is no
consciousness in that state and it returns to life, and
partially that of death, as is seen from the soui's experi
ence of misery and pain in that state resulting in dis-
torted face and limbs. It is a separate state, though it
happens occasionally, and the reason why it is not con-
3-2.1 IJ BRAHMA-SUTRAS 293
sidered a fifth state is because it is a mixture of the
ether two states.
^ tf, ^ II n
tT Not ^«rRcr; from (difference of) place gffq even
of Brahman twofold characteristic ^
t)ecause throughóut (tlie scriptures teach otherwise).
II. Even from (difference of) place a twofold
characteristic cannot (be predicated) of Brahman,
because throughout (the scriptures teach It to be
:>therwise i.e. without any qualities).
294 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.2.11
U II
f|, II U II
Formless only verily êftT-Mt|Hc4ld on
account of that being the main purport.
II U II
Ldte light ^ and not being pur-
portless.
II II
^ II II
(Scripture) shows ^ also araft thus arfq- also
(it is) stated by the Smrtis.
5 ^ cr«n^ n ^ n
Like water not being experienced
5 but ïT no similarity.
19. But (there is) no similarity (in the case of
Brahman, any second thing) not being exper
ienced like water.
An objection is raised that the comparison of the
last Sütra is not correct. In the case of the sun, which
has a form, water, which is different and at a distance
from it, catches its image but Brahman is formless
and all-pervading, and there can be nothing else differ
ent and at a distance from It, to serve as an Up&dhi,
that can catch lts reflection. So the comparison is
defective.
n ^<> n
Participating in the increase and
300 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.2.20
decrease aptPlfgicr on account of its being inside
411*1 on account of the sünilarity in the two cases
tr^ thus.
20. On account of Brahman being inside (lts
adjuncts) (It appears) to participate in their
increase and decrease. On account of this similari-
ty in the two cases (mentioned in Sütra 18) it is
thus (i.e. the comparison is riot defective).
The comparison with the rehectión of the sun is to be
taken not on all fours but Öhly with respect to a par-
ticular feature. Just as the reflected sun is distorted,
trembles, or varies in size as the water shakes,. expands,
or contracts, while the real sun remains unchanged; so
also Brahman participates, as i^ were, in the attributes
of the Upadhis; it grows with them, decreases with
them, suffers with them, and so on, but not in reality.
Hence on account of this. similarity in the two cases the
comparison is not defective.
II II
^ ^ ^^ II II
What has been mentioned up to this
srfdqyfir denies than that something more
says xT and.
22. What has been mentioned up to this is
denied (by the words 'Not this, not this'), and
(the Sruti) says something more than that (after-
wards).
Brahman has but two forms—^g^oss and subde,
mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, Sat
(defined) and Tyat (undefined)" (Br. 2. 3. 1). Thus
describing the two forms of Brahman, the gross, con-
sisting of earth, water, and fire, and the subtle, consist-
ing of air and ether, the Sruti says finally, "Now there-
fore the descripdon (of Brahman): *Not this, not this'
etc. (Br. 2. 3. 6). Now the question is whether the
doublé denial in 'Not this, not this' negates both the
world and Brahman, or only one of them. The oppo
nent holds that both are denied, and consequently
Brahman, which is false, cannot be the substratum for
a world, which is also false. In other words, it leads
us to Sünyavada, the theory of Void. If one only is
denied it is proper that Brahman is denied. for It is not
302 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.2.22
seen and therefore lts existence is doubtful, and not the
world, since we experience it. The Sütra refutes this
view and says that what has been described till now,
viz the two forms of Brahman, gross and subtle, is
denied by the words *N ot this, not this, the doublé
mention of these words of denial applying to the two
forms of Brahman. The word 'Iti' refers to what has
been mentioned immediately before, i.e. the Iwo forms
of Brahman, the subject-matter of the discussion, and
therefore cannot refer to Brahman Itself, which is not
the main topic of the preceding texts. Moreover, after
denying the world the Sruti says something more than
that about Brahman, u/z 'The Truth of truth mtaning
thereby that Brahman alone is the one reality that
exists and is the substratum of the world, which is
illusory. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that the Sruti,
professing to teach about Brahman, will deny it. It is
the Truth of truth, i.e. the reality behind 'Sat', or earth,
water, and lire, and 'Tyat' or air and ether, the definite
and indefinite forms in nature. There is no contradic-
tion to perception in this denial of the world, for it
denies only the transcendental reality of the world and
not its Vylivaharika or phenomental reality, which
remains intact. The objection, viz that Brahman is
not experienced, and therefore it is Brahman that is
denied, is baseless; for the object of the éruti is to teach
about something which is not ordinarily experienced
by us; otherwise its teaching would be redundant.
3ÏÏ^ ^ 1» H
^ That (Brahman) is not manifest
(so the scripture) says for.
3-2-24] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 3O3
23. That (Brahman) is not manifest, for (so
the scripture) says.
If Brahman exists, then why is It not perceived?
The ^ruti says that Brahman is unmanifest on account
of our being covered with ignorance. Therefore It is
not perceived by us: "He is not apprehended by the
eye, nor by the other senses, nor by penance" etc
(Mu. 3. 1. 8).
srfq" ^ ii ii
jsrfq- =5r And moreover in perfect meditation
(It is experienced) from the Sruti and
Smrti.
srorsr n w
3Rfr3R5%!T,ïraTf| II ^^11
31^; Therefore with the Infinite ^ thus
for (the scripture) indicates.
n II
SRiRTPsmir, II H
Lil^e light and its substratum^ or
on account of both being luminous.
As before gr or.
II II
'K'Rr: || ||
308 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.2.31
qTiq- Greater arg-; than this (Brahman)
oi» account of terms denoting a bank,
measure, connection, and difference.
11 II
M+niuftcid II n
On account of special places
like light etc.
310 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3-2.S4
11 U
sprïï ii ii
8i%rr By this all-pervadingness armmsiSCT-
as is known from scriptural statements etc. re-
garding (Brahman's) extent.
37. By this (is established) the all-pervading-
ness (of Brahman), as is known froin scriptural
statements etc. regarding (Brahman's) extent.
This Sütra explains the all-pervadingness of Brah
man which follows from the fact that It is one without
a second. By saying that texts describing Brahman as a
bank etc. are not to be taken literally, and by denying
all other things, it is proved that Brahman is all-pervad-
itig. If they were taken literally, then Brahman would
be limited and not all-pervading and consequently not
etemal. That Brahman is all-pervading is known from
312 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.2.S7
such Srati texts as, "He is (muiipresent like ether, and
eternied" (5at. Br. 19. 6. 3.2). See also Gita 2. 24.
ii
II H"
Because the scripture so teaches =3- and.
^4* 3ï^ 11 vo II
Enf Religious merits (sage) Jaimini for
the same reasons.
In the last four topics the entity 'That* has been ex-
plained. Firstly, Brahman has been shown to be form-
less, self-effulgent, and without difference; secondly, by
the denial of manifoldness in It it has been established
that it is one without a second; and lastly, It has been
proved to be the giver of the fruits of people's action in
the relative world.,,Thus the two entities 'thou' and
'That' have been explained in these two sections.
CHAPTER m
SEcnoN III
ïT II ^ II
On account of difference q- not ^ ta if it
be said «T not so even in the same (Vidy&).
2. If it be said (that the Vidyiis are) not (one)
on account o£ difference (in minor points), (we
reply) not so, since even in the same Vidya
(there might be such minor differences).
A further objection is raised that since certain differ
ences are seen to exist with respect to the Vidyês
described in different Sikhls, they cannot be one. For
example, in the Brhadiranyaka in the Pancigni Vidyi
a sixth fire is mentioned as an object of worship: "The
fire becomes his fire" (Br. 6. 2. 14); whereas in the
gis BRAHMA-SUTRAS [8-S-2
ChSndogya we have, "But he who knows these
five fires" (Ch. 5. 10. 10). Therefore on account of
difiEerence in form the two Vidyas cannot be one. This
Sütra refutes it and says that they are one, since even in
the same Vidyd there may be difEerences of form. The
five fires like heaven etc. mentioned in the Ch&ndogya
are identified in the Brhaddranyaka. Therefore there
be no difference in Vidyè. Nor can the presence or
absence of a sixth fire create a difference as regards
form, for in the same Atir^tra sacrifice the Soda^i
vessel may or may not be taken. On the other hand, on
account of the majority of fires being recognized in
both, it is reasonable that we should add the sixth fire
to the Vidya in the Chandogya. The name 'five fires'
is also no objection against this increase of number, for
the number five is not an essential part of the injunction.
Moreover, even in the same S^khS. and in the same
VidyA differences like this are seen in different chapters;
yet the Vidyi described in these different chapters is
taken on all hands as one. Therefore in spite of these
differences in different SSkhAs it is reasonable that
Vidy&s of the same class are one and not different.
n^n
II V II
Instructs xf ako.
(d II V. 11
Combination since there is no
difiference in the object of meditation the
subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice ^nd in the
Upasan&s of the same dass.
BRAHMA^UTRAS 321
5. And in the Up^an^ of the same class
(mentioned in different éakhüs) a mmhin^n^n
(of all the particulars mentioned in all is
to be made), since thwe is no difference in the
object of meditation just as (a combination of)
all subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice (mentioned
in different is made).
From what has been discussed in the previous Sütras
it ia dear that the Vidyês described in different SSkh^
will have to be combined in the Upèsand, since their
object after all is one. The particulars mentioned in
other ^ékh^ than one's own are also efficacious. and as
such one has to combine all these, even as one dóes
with respect to subsidiary rites like Agnihotra, connected
with a main sacrifice, mentioned in several Sakhds.
Topic 3: Vidyds having really different subject-matter
'are separate, though in other respects there are
similarities.
;r, ii ^ n
There is difference 91®^ on account of
(difference in) texts ^ if it be' said ^ not so
on account of non-difference (as regards
essentials).
6. If it be said (that the Udgitha VidyS of the
Brhajtonyaka and that of the Chandogya)
are different on account of (difference in) tms;
(we say) not so, on account of the non-differencé
(as regards essentials).
24
522 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3-S.6
This Sütra represents the view of the opponent, who
tries to establish that the two VidyAs are one. "Then
they said to this vital force in the mouth, 'Chant the
Udgitha for us.' 'AU right", said the vital force and
chanted for them" (Br. 1. 3. 7); "Then this vital
force that is in the mouth—^they meditated on the
Udgitha 'Om' as that vital force" (Ch. 1. 2. 7). It
may be objected that they cannot be one. because of
the difference in texts. But this is unacceptable, because
there is unity as regards a great many points. (For the
similarity see texts in both). So on the grounds g|iven in
Sütra 3. 3. 1, there is unity of Vidy&s.
^ u vs u
q- qr Rather not on account of difiEerence
in subject-matter ^ medita-
tion on the Ud^tha) as the highest and greatest
(Brahman) (is different).
Sïfer % 11 ^ II
On account of the name (being same)q^ if
it has already been answered exists ^
but cRi that arfr even.
8. If on account of the name (of both Vidy^
being the same, it be'said that they are one), it has
already been answered. But even that (identity
of name in Vidyas admitted to be different) exists.
Identity of name is no reason for claiming unity of
Vidyas, since the subject-matter differs. This has
already been established in the last Sütra. Moreover,
it is home out by the saiptures. For example, the
different sacrifices like Agnihotra, Dai4apürnam&sa,
etc., which all occur in K&^aka, are known as K&tha-
kas; or even the Ud^tha UpAsanis of Ch. 1. 6 and
Ch. 1. 9. 2 are different Vidyis.
Topic 4: Specializing the *Om' of the Udgitha Vidyd is
apt, as 'Om* is common to all the Vedas.
524 BRAHMA-SÜTRAS [3.8.9
II e II
sirr^: Because (Om) extends (over the whole of
the Vedas) ^ and is appropriate.
II II
sraPRT II \\ II
f|^ II II
5l^rXK^<<l(4 (Qualities liké) joy being lts head etc.
annfètr: ar® not to be taken everywhere
increase and decrease ^ because ^(are possible) in
difEerence.
II II
For the sake of meditation
as there is no use.
II II
On account of the word 'Self* and.
II II
%,wramrcw ii ?\9 il
airquig* Because of the context if it be said
i^ might be so grgerRTRf on account of the
definite statement.
II Ivi II
II II
19. In the same iSakha also (it is) like this (i.e.
there is unity of Vidya), on account of the non-
difiEerence (of the object of meditation).
In the Agnirahasya in the Vèjasaneyi ^Skhi there is
a Vidya called Sindilya Vidya, in which occurs the
passage, "Let him meditate on the Self which consists
of mind" etc. (5at. Br. Madhy. 10. 6. 3. 2). Again in
the Brhadhianyaka, which belongs to the same Sikhi
we have, "Thi.s Being identified with the mind" etc.
(Br. 5. 6. 1). Do these two passages form one Vidyl
332 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [S.S.19
in which the particulars mentioned in either text are to
be combined, or are they different Vidyis? The Sütra
says that they are one Vidy^, since the object of medita-
tion in both cases is the Self consisting of mind. The rule
as regards the combining of particulars of a similar
Vidyé in the same SSkhd is the same as in the case of
such VidySs occurring in different SikhSs. Therefore
the SSndilya Vidy^ is one.
II II
ïï II II
II II
m n
II u
II II
Piercing etc. because they have
different meaning.
25
S38 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.3.?
Ku^as, metres, praise, and hymns have to be complet^
from other texts. In some places Ku^as are simply meii
tioned, but another text spedfies that they are to bk
made of fig wood. The first ^ruti will have to be conv^
pleted in the light of the other. Similarly with respect
to metres, praise, and redtation. This prindple is here
applied to the efEects of the Up^aka's actions in con-
nection with the Vidyis mentioned in the Upanisads.
We find certain texts mentioned the discarding of good
and evil by a person attaining Knowledge. Vide Ch.
8. 13. Another text not only mentions this, but also
adds that the good and evil are obtained by his friends
and enemies, respectively. Vide Kau. 1. 4. This Sütra
says that the obtaining of the good and evil by his friends
and enemies has to be inserted in the Chindogya text,
according to Jaimini's prindple explained above.
This Sütra may also be explained in another way if
the discussion on 'discarding' is different. It may be
argued that the Verb 'Dhu' in the text of the Ch^ndo-
gya and Kausitaki may be interpreted as trembling
and not as getting rid of, in which case it would mean
that good and evil still ding to a person who attains
Knowledge, though their effects are retarded owing to
the Knowledge. This Sütra says that such a meaning is
not correct, for the subsequent portion of the text in the
Kau^taki shows that others get this good and evil,
and this is not possible unless the person who attains
Knowledge discards them.
Topic 16: The discarding of good and evil by the knower
of Brahman takes place at the time of death and not on
his way to Brahmaloka.
.27) BRAHMA-SUTRAS 339
tïFTüt, ^ 11 II
j
II II
ii \o n
yqqg: Is reasonable for the char-
acteristics which render such joumey possible are seen
as in the world.
•T II II
II II
Of the conceptions of the (negative)
attributcs of the Immutable (Brahman) ^ but
combination ^trpzRTpiJ^vzrTTr on account of the similar-
ity (of defining Brahman through denials) and the
object (viz Immutable Brahman) being the same rr^-
as in the case of the Upasada (offerings)
has been said (by Jaimini).
33. But the conceptions of the (negative)
attribiites of the Immutable (Brahman) are to
be combined (from different texts where the
Immutable Brahman is treated, in all medita
tions on the Immutable Brahman, as they form
one Vidya), on account of the similarity (of
defining the Immutable Brahman through
denials) and the object (the Immutable Brah
man) being the same, as in the case of the Upasad
(offerings). It has been said (by Jaimini in Pürva
Mimaihsa).
"O GArgi, the knowers of Brahman say this Immu-
346 BRAHMA-SUTRAS l!ï.!?.33
table (Brahman) is that. It is neither gross nor minute,
neither short nor long" etc. (Br. 3. 3. -8). Again we
have, The siipreme knowledge is that by which the
Immiitable (Brahman) is attained. That which is im-
perceivable, ungraspable" etc. (Mu. 1. I. 5-6) The
question is whether the negative attributes in these two
texts are to be combined so as to ferm one Vidya, or
they are to be treated as two separate Vidyas. The
opponent holds that these attributes do not directly
specify the nature of Brahman like the positive attrib
utes, bliss, truth, etc., and so the principle established
in Sütra 3. 3. II does not apply here, for no purpose is
served by such a combination. So each denial is valid
only for the text in which it occurs and not for other
places. This the Sütra refutes and says that such denials
are to be combined, for the method of teaching Brah
man through denial is the same, and the object of
instruction is also the same, viz the Immutable Brah
man. The rule of Sütra 3. 3. 11 applies here also, though
there we were concerned with positive attributes and
here with negative attributes which teach Brahman by
an indirect method. The case is analogous to the
Upasada offerings. The Mantras for giving these offer-
ings are found only in the Sama-Veda. But the priests
of the Yajur-Veda use this Mantra given in the other
Veda. This principle is decided by Jaimini in Pürva
Mimamsa. Similarly here also in the meditation on the
Immutable (Brahman) the negative attributes have to
be combined.
II II
sn^nn" As being the innermost of all in the
case of the elements (teaching) of the same Self.
35. The same Self (is taught) as being the
innermost of all, as in the case of the elements.
In the Brhadaranyaka we find Usasta questioning
Yajnavalkya thus: "Explain to me the Brahman that
is immediate and direct—the self that is within all"
and Yagnavalkya replies: "That which breathes through
Prana is your self, that is within all," (Br. 3. 4. 1). In
the same Upanisad 3. 5. 1, to the same question put
by Kahola, Yiijnavalkya replies: "That which tran-
scends hanger and thirst, grief and delusion, decay
and death. Knowing this very Self" etc. The opponent
hplds that these two are separate Vidyas, because the
answers given being different, the objects referred to
must be different. The Sfftra refutes 'this and says that
the object is one, the Supreme Self, for it is impossible
to conceive two Selves being simultaneously the inner
most of all in the same body, even as none of the five
elements constituting the body can be the innermost.of
all in the true sense of the term, though,relatively one
element can be inside another. Similarly one Self alone
can be the innermost of all. Therefore the same Self is
taught in both the answers.
II 11
N
11 ^V9 11
Reciprocity (of meditations) (tbe
scriptures) prescribe (this) for as in other cases.
S50 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [S-S-S?
^ n W
^ The same (Satya-Vidyi) because
(attributes like) Satya etc.
^ STTZRFrrfèvzT: II II
(True) desire etc. in the other ^
(those mentioned) in the other q* and nn
iccount of the abode etc.
M 11
IIY? II
As in the case of the offerings exactly
thatgqgir has been stated.
1 43. (The meditations on Vayu and PrSna are
356 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [S-SAS
II YV II
I II Vït II
I Altemative forms of the one mentioned
first spFWcT c«i account of the context rtth ought to
I ^
be fsptn" part of the sacrifice like the imaginary
drink.
II II
5, n V\3 11
fïïiSIT VidyA trq indeed 5 hut because (th
Sruti) asserts it.
11 ii
T im H
II Xo II
From the connection and so on (exten
sion etc.) even as other VidySs an
separate (it is) seen ^ and this has beei
said (by Jaimini).
50. From the connection and so on (exten
sion etc.) (the fires constitute a separate Vidya)
even as other Vidyas (like the San^ilya Vidya
are separate. And (it is) seen (that in spite of tb
context a sacrifice is treated as independent]
This has been said (by Jaimini in Pürva Mima
ihs^-Sütras).
This Sütra gives additional reasons in support o
the view set forth in Sütra 47. The text connects fo
purposes of Sampat Upasanü (meditations based on
resemblance) parts of a sacrifice with mental activitiei
e.g. "These fires are started mentally, the altars ar
set up mentally...everything connected with this sacr
fice are done mentally." This is possible only if there i
a sharp difiference between things resemblirig eac!
other.
II n H
^ 5nfS®nT, II II
From the subsequent (Biihmana) «q and
tcxt the fact of being such
on account of the abundance but connection.
ii n
H 5iraif ff nnn
(Up&sanas) connected with parts (of sac-
rifidal acts) ^ but ^ not to (particular) $&kh&s
^ because i** ^^ch Veda.
55. But (the Up^anas) connected with parts
(of sacrificial acts are) not (restricted) to (partic
ular) iSakh^ only of each Veda (but to all its
3.3.56] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 365
II II
•N
II ^o
^
II
3r^(T TO^izrfrR: n h
17
370 BRAHMA-SUTJRAS (3.3.6
*5 With regard (to meditations) coiuiectec
with members (of sacrificial acts) itrT-BTTSni-iTT^: it is a
with (the members) with which they are connected.
61. With regard (to meditations) connectec
with memb'ers (of sacrificial acts) it is as with (th<
members) with which they are connected.
Sütras 61-64 give the view of the opponent. Differen
instructions connected with a sacrifice are mentioned ii
the different Vedas. Now the scriptures themselves sa^
that all these members mentioned in the differen
Vedas are to be combined for the due performance o
the main one. The question now is, what is the rille tt
be foliowed with respect to the Up&sands connectec
with these members? This Sütra says that the sam<
rule which applies to the members applies- also to th<
Upasanas connected with them. In other words, al
these Upisanês are also to be combined.
H II
II II
3-3.66] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 571
63. On account of the rectification.
A further reason is given by the opponent.
"Now verily that which is Udgitha is 'Om', and that
which is 'Om' is Udgitha. (If one knows this) then from
the seat (i.e. through proper functioning) of the Hotr
(he) rectifies all defective singing (of the Udg^tr)"
(Ch. 1. 5. 5). Here it is said that the mistakes com-
mitted by the Udgétr (chanting priest of the S^a-
Veda) are rectified by the recitation of the Hotr
(invoking priest of the Rg-Veda), which shows that thé
meditations, though they are given in' the different
Vedas, are yet interlinked. So all of them have to be
observed.
II 11
II^KII
S72 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.3.65
^ ^ Rather not correlation not
being mentioned by the Sruti.
65. (The meditations connected with mem-
bers of sacrificial acts are) rather not to be com-
bined), as the Sruti does not say that they are so
correlated.
This and the folloiving Sütra give the conclusion.
The rule for combining the instructions regarding sacri-
fices that are scattered in all the Vedas cannot be
applied with respect to the Updsands connected with
them. In the former case, if the instructions are not
combined, the sacrifice itself will fail. But not so if the
UpSsanas are not practised, lor Upasanas only en-
hance the results of the sacrifice. {Vide 3. 3. 42). They
are not inseparable from the lacrifice. So they may or
may not be practised.
11 II
Because the 5ruti says so ^ and.
66. And because the Sruti says so.
"The Brahm^ (superintending priest) who knows
this protects the sacrifice, the sacrificer, and all the
other priests" (Ch. 4. 17. 10). This shows that the
scriptures do not intend that all the meditations should
go together. If it were so, then all the priests would
know all of them and there is no sense in the ^ruti
distinguishing the qualihed superintending priest from
the rest.
The meditations, therefore, may or may not be
combined according to one's taste.
CHAPTER 111
Section IV
II ? II
Purpose of man aRT: fro™ this v|q<ld from
the scriptures^ thus (says) Badarayana.
II R li
II ^ II
II V II
II SC II
fïSrfl II ^ II
For such (as know the purport of the Veda
because (the scriptures) enjoin (work).
ümreq* II Vd II
On account of prescribed niles and
ll =; II
5^ 3 II ^ II
Equal ^ but sshnr declarations of the 8ruti.
II tl
BRAHMA-SUTRAS 379
II n II
(There is) division of knowledge and work
as in the case of a hundred (divided between
iwo persons).
11. (There is) division of knowledge and work,
as in the case of a hundred (divided between two
persons).
This Sütra refutes Sütra 5. "It is followed by know
ledge, work, and past experiences" (Br. 4. 4. 2). Here
we have to take knowledge and work in a distributive
sense, meaning that knowledge follows ohe and work
another. Just as when we say a hundred be given to
these two persons, we divide it into two halves and give
each man fifty. There is no combination the two.
£ven without this explanation Sütra 5 can be refuted.
For the text quoted refers only to knowledge and work,
which concern the transmigrating soul, and not an
emancipated soul, For the passage, "Thus does the man
who desires (trasmigrate)" (Ibid. 4. 4. 6) shows that
the previous t^xt refers to the transmigrating self. And
of the emancipated soul ^ruti says, "But the man who
never desires (never transmigrates)" etc. (Ibid. 4. 4. 6).
380 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [S.4.n
li II
T, JiMmd II n H
^ Not owing to the absence of an^
specification.
II II
II U 11
According to their choice ^ and some.
II II
Destructions ^ and.
'ïTi % II ?c; II
TUTW Mere reference ^firfïTi Jaimini there
is no injunction ^ and apT^^ because (the scrip-
ture) condemns (it).
31^^ «tKiWI:, It II
Ought to be gone through Badara-
384 BRAHMA-SUTRAS 13-4.19
II Ro II
^IW^qT5iïTTTfë% m ? II
Mere praise ^qr^pTI^ because of their
reference (to parts of sacrifidal acts) ^ ^ if it be
said ^ not so on account of its newness.
II II
f ii n
For the purpose of Pébriplavas ^^if it
be said ïï not so on account of (certain stories
alone) being specified.
ii n
. 3Ï^ II II
3ï?r(]r^ Therefore ^ and no neces-
sity of lighting fires etc.
^ II II
ii ii
Permission to take. all sorts of food
when life is jeopardized because the
^ruti declares that.
II II
arfcT II \o II
arfq- ^ Moreover 'he Smrtis say so.
II II
cT 11 II
II II
Not being overpowered ^ and the
scripture shows.
35. And the scripture shows (that ene endow-
ed with Brahmacarya) is not overpowered (by
anger etc.).
"For that self does not perish which one attains by
Brahmacarya" (Ch. 8. 5. 3). This text also shows
that like work, Brahmacarya etc. are also means to
Knowledge. One endowed with it is not overcome by
anger, jealousy, etc., and his mind not being disturbed
he is able to practise Knowledge.
Therefore works are obligatory on the Airamas and
are also means to Knowledge.
aRcHT 5» II II
(Persons standing) in between (two Airamas)
^ and arPr 5 also such cases being seen.
SSJG BRAHMA-SUTRAS [3.4.36
36. And (persons standing) in between (two
Aéramas) are also (entitled to Knowledge), be-
cause sucli cases are seen.
II II
II II
i 5 fwng^qr-
'TT^: II Vo II
398 BRAHMASUTRAS 5-4.40
II V? II
5 q[% «rRfJT, II 11
gq^Prefixed with 'Upa', i.e. an UpapAtaka or
400
BRAHMA-SUTRAS [iAA2
^^grfvr., II w u
HlPn: To the sacrificer from the decla-
ration of results in the ."iruti this aiT^: Atreya.
3Trf?^ïriiï?2fl^?y|fïT:, II vk ii
3rif^5ïiï^ The duty of the Rtvik (priest) thus
3ïfe?ftfq: Audulomi for that because hc
is paid.
II II
II vc II
I arf^RT ii ^«11
Without manifestihg himself arnpn^ on
account of the context.
406 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [S.4.50
liaf
II HR II
Section I
anffe, u UI
tHHptl: Repetition (is necessary) repeatedly
on account of instruction by the scriptures.
II ^ II
"ReÖect upon the rays, and you will have many sons"
(Ch. 1. 5. 2). This text prescribes repeated meditation
by asking to meditate on the Udg^tha as the rays instead
4.1.3] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 411
dilcilld 11 ^ II
3rRÏ|r% As the self 5 but acknowledge
teach ^ also.
IIVII
4l^€(^d:, dc+MÏd n K II
Viewing as Brahman on account
of the elevatimi.
II % II
snftfïnfè-ïïtFr: The ideas of the sun etc. ^ and ar^
in a subordinate member (of sacrificial acts)
because of consistency.
il V9 ii
STT^TT^ II e;||
II e II
II II
u U u
ijg' Wherever q^fnq'dT concentration of mind ^
there for want of any specification.
11. Wherever concentration of mind (is. at-
tained), there (it is to be practised), there being
no specification (as to place).
The object of meditation is to attain concentration,
and so any place is good if concentration is attained in
that place. That is why the scriptures say, "Select any
place suitable and convenient"; "Where the mind is
buoyant there one.should concentrate", and so on. But
places that are dean, free from pebbles, fire, sand, and
so on, are desirable, as such places are helpful to medita
tion. But all the same there are no fixed rules as to
place.
30
418 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [4.1.1J
12. Tili death (ineditations have to be ob-
served), because (their observance) even at that
moment is seen (from the scriptures).
In the first topic of this section it was said that medi-
tations on Brahman are to be repeated tili Knowledge
dawns. The question is now taken up about oiher
meditations which are practised for attaining certain
results. The opponent holds that such meditations can
be stopped after a certain time; they would still yield
results, like sacrifices peiformed only once. This Sütra
says that they are to be continued tili death, for the
Sniti and Smrti say so. "With whatever thought he
passes away from this world" (Sat. Br. 10. 6. 3. 1).
"Remembering whatever form of being he leaves this
body" etc. (Giti 8. 6). Such a thought at the time of
death as fixes thè course of life hereafter cannot be had
at that moment without lifelong practice. Hence' medi
tations must be practised tUl death.
ii II
f II II
420 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [4.1.14
5 g?, II U II
arqR5g'-^^>rgr Works which have not begun to yield
results qq- only 5 but ^ former works that
(death) being the limit.
g II II
mnnjldlPi (Daily) Agnihotra etc.5 but
422 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [4.1.16
contiibute to the same result as that (knowledge)
oiily that being seen (from the scriptures).
16. But (the results of daily) Agnihotra etc.
(are not destroyed by Knowledge; these) con-
tribute to the very same result as Knowledge
(i,e. Liberation), because that is seen from the
scriptures.
Among works some are enjoined for attaining certain
results such as heaven, and there are others like the
daily Agnihotra which yield no such results and yet
are enjoined as a sort of discipline. The opponent holds
that even these regular works (Nitya Karma) performed
before the dawning of Knowledge are destroyed, even
as works done with desires (Kémya Karma), for from
the standpoint of the knower of Brahman his non-
agency with respect to both is the same. This Sütra
refutes that view and says that the regular works per
formed in the past are not destroyed. Works are of two
kinds: those which yield specific results, and those
which help to produce Knowledge. Obligatory regular
works performed before Knowledge are of this latter
kind. And since Knowledge leads to Liberation, the
regular works also may be said to contribute indirectly
to that. Hence their results persist till death.
II II
U W
Section II
II I 11
IR II
ii v n
lu n
In the elements Irom the Sruti texts to
that effect.
II ^ II
T Not in one (both) declare so
for.
II V9 II
yirnrr Common and arr up to the
begiiming of their ways ar^d^ immortiity and
not having bumt (igjnorance).
7. And common (is the mode of departure at
Ae time of death for both the knower of the
Saguna Brahman and the ignorant) up to the
/ the knowertheir
(of ways;
of the and Brahman
Saguna the immortality
is only
relative), not having burnt (ignorance).
For the knower of the Nirguna Brahman there is
no departure at all. Leaving his case, the opponent says
that the mode of departure from the body for the
knower of the Saguna Brahman and the ignorant
ought to be different, as they attain different abodes
after death, the former reaching Brahmaloka and the
latter being rebom in this world. This Sütra says that
the knower of the Saguna Brahman enters at death the
nerve Susumn^, and then goes out of the body, and
takes to the path of the gods, while the ignorant enter
some other nerve and go by another way to have re-
birth. But till they enter on their respective ways, the
method of departure at death is common to both, for
it is something pertaining to this life, and like happiness
and misery it is the same for both.
432 BRAHMA^UTRAS [4.2.8
Topic 5: The merging of fire etc. at death in the
Supreme Deity is not absolute merging.
5RTS*ft%:, II II
That 3IT "P attainment of Brahman
(through Knowledge) because (scriptures)
declare the state of relative existence.
H^H
ïïtTRI?TO: U II
^ Not by the destruction therefore.
gOT \\ \\\\
ïT, ^TRter ii ii
srfirTOI?r On .account of denial sfk if it be said
^ not so from the individual soul.
Fpset II II
Clear for of some (schools).
^ 11 II
aifH a«n^ ii n ii
436 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [4.2.11
U II
cTcSr+lRldéK:
ï* 11 11
II II
^ li II
II II
11^? II
ïïtfïïïT; srfe With respect to the Yogis ^ and
the Smrti declares belonging to the class of Smrtis
^ and tJ^ these two.
Section III
cresrto: n ? ii
(On the path connected with deities)
beginning with that of the flame cRT-srfe^; that being
well known (from the Sruti).
3ïfNM^?hsnr«ïïiT ii ^ n
w % ii
4.3.4] BRAHMA.SUTRAS 447
II V II
448 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [4.3.4
ïTfr:, II % II
32
450 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [4.3.7
sRq* 11 va ||
I) c; (I
5 II e. II
On account of the nearness fT hut
(its) designatioh as that.
qr^T, srfwTrer ii n
Vpf-aTciT^ On the dissolution of the Brahmaloka
^-STFET^ along with the mier of that world (i.e.
Supreme Brahman)grïr: higher than that {i.e. the
Saguna Brahman) arfïraTTm on account of the dec-
laration of the Sruti.
II U I'
TT II %^\\
The Supreme (Brahman) (so says)
Jaimini ^(s^cglld^ on account of that being the primary
meaning (of the word 'Brahman').
11 II
^^ II II
n n
4.3.15] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 455
II %% II
fWq- Difference ^ and the scripture declares
16. And the scripture declares a difference
(with respect to nieditations on symbols).
"One who meditates upon name as Brahman be-
comes independent so far as name reaches" (Ch. 7. 1. 5);
"One who meditates upon speech as Brahman be-
comes independent so far as speech reaches" (Ch.
7. 2. 2). In these texts the ^ruti tells of different results
according to difference in the symbols. This is possible
because the meditations depend on symbols, while
there could be no such difference in results if they
depended on the one non-different Brahman. Hence it
is clear that those who use symbols for their meditations
cannot go to Brahmaloka like those who meditate on
the Saguna Brahman.
CHAPTER IV
Section IV
II X II
II ^ II
Released «Tf^STRRl^ from the premiss.
2. (The Self which manifests lts true nature
attains) Liberation, (as is known) from the pre
miss (made in the scriptures).
If Liberation is nothing new that is acquired by the
Jiva, then what is its difference from bondage? The
Jiva in the state of bondage was subject to the three
states of wakefulness, dream, and deep-sleep, and was
experiencing happiness and raisery, imagining itself to
be hnite. On being freed from all these misconccptions
it realizes its true nature, which is Absolute Bliss. This
rcmoval - of all misconceptions is what is known as
Liberation. Between these two states there is a world of
difference. How is it known that in this state the Jiva
is liberated? From the premiss made in the scriptures—
says the Sütra. "I will explain It to you further" (Ch.
8. 9. 3, 8. 10. 4, 8. 11. 3)—here the Sruti proposes to
expound that Self which is free from all imperfections,
and it begins thus: "The being without the body is not
touched by pleasure and pain" (Ch. 8. 12. 1) and
concludes, "Thus does this serene being rising above its
4.4.4J BRAHMASUTRAS 459
aïTrïlT, SHFCW 11 ^ II
srfïïWÏïï, II V II
II it 1 1
II % II
Solely as Pure Intelligence gRf
that being its true nature thus Audulomi
(thinks).
II V9 n
SRr II e II
3nïR 3n^ II II
Absence (of body and organs) q)Kp<; Badari
(considers) an^ (the 3ruti) says ^ because qaw thus.
464 BRAHMA-SUTRAS [4.4.10
HT# W X\ W
Ëxistence Jaimini because
the scripture declares (the capacity to assume) diverse
forms.
II II
4.4.14] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 465
Like the twelve days' sacrifice
(is) of both kinds grêmW: Badarayana aTcf: from this.
U II
^5TTW II II
SRhl^ïir:, II ^5^ II
5|<0Meia Like a flame animating ^pin so ^
because tRhT% the scripture shows.
II II
4.4.16] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 467
Of deep-sleep and absolute union (with
Brahman) aFZigx-sAtSnr baving in view either o£ these
two this is made dear (by the Sruti) for.
16.(The declaration of absence of ali cognition
is made) having in view either of the two states,
viz deep-sleep and absolute union (with Brah
man), for this is made clear (by the scriptures).
"What should one know and through what" (Br
2. 4. 14); "But there is not that second thing separate
from it which it can know" {Ibid. 4.3. 30); "It becomes
like water, one, the witness, and without a second"
{Ibid. 4. 3. 32). These texts deny cognition to a released
soul; so how is it possible for a released soul to assume
several bodies and enjoy—^says the opponent. This
Sütra says that these texts refer either to the state of
deep-sleep or to that of Liberation, in which the soul
attains absolute union with the Nirguna Brahman, as
is made dear by the scriptures from the context in each
case. But what we have been discussing in the previous
Sütras is the case of one who has attained not absolute
union with Brahman, but only Brahmaloka. This state
is quite different from the other two states, and as such
cognition is possible in it, there being diversity, as also
enjoyment, even as in heaven, the difference being that
from Brahmaloka one does not return to this earth,
whereas from heaven one returns to this mortal world
after the exhaustion of the virtue which raised him to
the status of a god.
r: II II
4.4.19] BRAHMA-SUTRAS 469
On account of direct teaching
if it be said ^ not because the
scripture declares (that the soul attains Him) who en-
trusts the sun etc. (with their offices) and resides in
those spheres.
II II
amf ,3iRTf%: U II
SFlT^fw: Non-return on account of scriptural
dedaration.
3r?Tq^'ïfWfliïo 3 2 18 ar^4>aife^:e 50
3Tcri^ snw: 1 1 23 30
arïT: 3 2 8 25
ar^g^r^sfïïo ^ 4 2 20 37
3mrH«<d<g^o 3 4 39 arfïTT 13
sRTïft^o 1 1 1 3ïixR?qiRRo 41
474 BRAHMA-SUTRAS
4J|«K^1h: 3 3 40 42
anf^cMlHiHd^o 4 1 6 27
arrwiMW 5rq>o 3 3 14 1 27
aTT'F^'Rto 1 1 12 3 35
a(M«4ld^:o 3 3 11 ^T^'T^o 2 36
STH'TWfiTfeo 3 1 10 30
1 4 1 3 42
anq; 2 3 11 3 16
dllMl^miTldlo 4 1 12 ;3<T5rf5^g#pnT: 2 37
an^rm 2 3 50 2 24
dJIMdPcTo 1 2 32 3 5
3rrf5^ïrf^>o 3 4 45 3 41
^KHI^ 2 35
ajMpHidt'll® 4 1 1
an^: ^nP^RTcT 4 1 7 ^«WTT ShrRT 2 16
an^ d'MIdH 3 2 16 2 23
^Wnf^TT^to 2 12
1 3 18 ^qöim^VIlT^e 3 27
^dXözPT^Sirfëo 2 1 21 4 5
^dX^TT^l^'RRr O 4 1 14
2 2 19 3^^:% ?r3^o 3 4 17
^ cf«rónTTo 3 3 13
2 1 2 IT^ STRW: rto 3 3 53
^ïTRTRT 3 3 34 wRwo 2 3 8
l^ïftïï: 5R5^: 2 1 3
3W^^^TfW3e 1 3 19
2 2 20 3 4 51
476 BRAHMA-SUTRAS
WPTTcT 1 3 39 '^«Tdd^fdiil'^ld^ 1 4 8
q-o 2 2 40 ■^xorrfkf^ 3 1 9
2 3 33 '4<N<«ilHI«rïTo 2 3 16
2 4 f^fdd'*lld«lc 4 4 6
4 10
4 15 5JWo 3 3 28
qJTTTö^ «n^TTo 1 18 Sp^tf^HT^o 1 1 25
qTHTTstcRyo 3 39
qirWTR^ ï^TTo 3 60 16
qïK«lc^H qWTo 4 14 17
3 7 'Td": 1 1 2
3 18 dN'pdsrrn'e 1 4 17
qrnrf^ ersrciro 3 .10 tt
I 1 31
|Sïï5Rr»TT^5nF5O 3 42 1 4 4
^cTTcZr^S^pTZTo 1 8 dtsd qd 18
4 48 'izfl fdxlrerfdisST: 14
1 26 ^zhfd^irqim^ O 9
erfoTqrtqrs^ 2 31 'ïiftFddTfrdTd; ^ 40
1 3 35 5=thfd9dVnfVe 1 24
^UlfdfVdTqi'B^ 3 32
TfïïW^^RITo 3 15 wzftfqif^HTdo 4 13
ïrRnjnTFïTTcr^ 1 10
3 29 d ^H-Ji^lfwio 4 17
P^IHKU^o 3 64 4 4
pTST 3 25 df^dtsfÈr d^o 3 3
5^ srfwrqro 2 11 dW ddrddld
% ^
1 1 4
ïïH9%?!TTcT0 I 6 dc^d^FcdTdTd: 2 4 4
3 3 dd^sn^J^lfd 2 4 3
4 2 ddïfd VdSmo 3 1 .16
ddTd ddd^ 2 3 27
=5r9Rlf^. 5RT« 2 4 10 ddIdd?dmdto 3 4 24
00 co cc O 'i' CM co lO (O ' CM Oi CO co O) Oi CO CM O
Ui CM Tt* co CM CM CC CC
CM
ó
V
Ui CM cc cc cc cc CC CM cc CM CC CM CC cc - CM CC CM CM - —
CM
- - -
jg
36
eo cc cc T •M" cc CC CC CM CM CC — CC CM CM ■<1- CM CC CM cc CM CM
O
i**". Ir' O O
ty O F O ; te |E'-&
O te ^
'hr
1 -^ II'
/tz
||} I Pk" e-if
£
i|i ^
Ir hr *•»—■■''fcr O- iü te CT nr
t 'te IS- If fa- & c£ hr-tte <t /
tc
73
& Ir Ir Ir IF Ir icflliNbc
P
I ii-il'
17
14
^ Öï 'E" » Irlrlrlrlrhrhr lrlrtelr
CC CC
CO
•rt cc
23 CC Oï
CM
O
T
<o CM r'. cc CC
-
co tn
CM
O (O CM
(J
O
CM cc CM cc CM CM cc CM CC •«t* CC CM Th Th CM cc Th
co — -
26 - - - - -
CC CM - CM CC - cc CM CM CM CC cc CC - Th CM CM cc cc CM CC cc
ü - - -
to'tS'
ooo i^OO 14
|_
:'Ê erllte •
"eI^ÜI
^ g i
» te te g' I 40fe-
F/i
aE^teR/tc.trRfcÉI?:,te.fc
Êlf 1 i|i|| LiL^Z-te
p tonj Ste *|irte tew te^ te' S <1^ ciL
te te te te te to to te iillllt-iii
53
478 BRAHMA-SUTRAS
ÏT 3 2 12 3 43
^ 44^<lcHl4^o 1 1 29 2 37
3 3 65 2 3
ÏT SRT^i^o 3 3 7 Tt 3 12
ïT 415M ^0 2 4 9 TTïRr: 2 31
ïT ^ r^^ÏMId 3 3 21 3 41
ïT ' 2 3 1 M^inüwiMiir^o 2 5
»T 2 1 4 M<mw 4 18
ïT ?f^<T?riTfro 1 4 11 3 52
ïT 3 2 51 qrRH^i'Tf 4 23
ïT ?5TR?ftsPTo 3 2 11 3 31
2 3 21 f^r^^TRTfïT^o 3 24
Wo 3 1 23 5^ciT2ftscr: 9r5^ro 3 4 1
ïTrcin«r%f%cïTo 2 3 17 5W5ïT^f^o 2 2 7
ïTRr wsïrfe^o 3 3 58 2 41
ïTrfR-fTOTo 1 3 3 2 29
2 2 28 SRïTo 3 45
_ f* *v __ __
ïfTRiït^snffT 3 4 13 3 28
2 2 26 ^ferfERTrwTo 3 12
fïicï|%^V 2 2 14 sr^TW5=^ 2 10
fTRiftTvfêSZl^o 2 3 32 M«t><"lltf 3 6
%ïnTT^ 3 4 7 ÏRiTiT^^TWZpElTf^ 3 2 15
fïmf^rR =^0 3 2 2 snTmrr^^^rtjifo^ 3 2 25
?rfir %fïTo 4 2 19 «1T: 2 3 46
ïltfO:»^Mïfvr: 1 1 16 SRïRlTSnr^STo 3 2 28
* ^ c»
TmFT:=^zim T^ 4 2 6 srf^o 1 4 23
2 2 33 f f^o 3 2 22
ïftTTfïmr: 4 2 10 1 20
2 6
2 4 12 srïd^Mi-o^ 3 30
mA-^ 2 1 19 4 12
BRAHMA-SUTRAS 479
3 1 27 f^^N^^SïïT0 1 2 22
1 2 12
2 2 i 3 4 38
4 2 18 4 3 8
^"TTfeTr^TT^o 2 2 15 f^rd^flTcT 2 3 34
1 2 23 fkff^Tc^Tv^To 3 4 32
3 1 26 3 2 20
%«rT?I'!T5ï5T5T 3 3 25
3 3 44 rRR^'o 4 3 6
4 1 2 ^grzrfwq" ^0 2 2 ^9
2 1 t^rSFT'ÏÏT'S^ 2 4 19
vfhFW^ O 33
d6l<*o 2 4 22
l 4 5 t^ïTT: ïHOTTo 1 2 24
«i<;<iild %^o
<»i«tqi*^^icr 1 4 19 ^^rïpf^o^ *To 2 1 34
4 2 1 5XT(d^«t>ta^i«1lo 3 3 54
^T^ö?T^f%9ro 4 3 2 2 2 4
2 l 31 5zrfa^«t»l T'^r^cT 2 3 26
9I^9^TcftSVTiT6 4 31
fgtpfipir ^ ^j'fto 2 3 14 3
2 45 2 3 4
f^5rf?T^«rr3^ 2
2 10 1 2 26
r<4y(dQui-«^ro 2 1 ;0
3 4 11 !{|«sc!i3«!| srftRr: 1 3 24
fg^TTïï: sid«<?l
27 3 4 27
^4'iïtfïïo l 3 O
H
ob-hmnlttK hjiËb ak^a'ftlb. lUlbft
6 £
ab^h^WlUblHI»
Z l 08
Zf \ Q 61 ph iilhJi
I oimyi2ajyfejBÊ 68 È&ifeUüzaiittt
gi
II I fil
LZ £ £ oU22^ 81
6 6
zz
g 'jXUfcültlB 5
zz
g ohkiyhUzslklB I m S112aJB
II I >IUftlH?K Ix lft 91
8S 8 oÊ
fiZ 6 olyiifeÊ kh B
£ o:jyfejuLbi±kft 98 ap.|fteWI\kMU»»t»
ZZ 8 81
oe Z 03 ^ oÊ^Ê3jIèfejy)hJÈB
01 8 8 Z
9Z 8 oli^ ^
8 M2ate
8Z 8
I 8 61^
LZ Z 91
£ olftIj>b B l»Jlb^ LZ I ojsbÈSlÈ
ZZ 9^ kiU^
ti
I I 68 3
8 I II ï I ksJk^^
ab>.lb«>&OJfe-»l» a blUhb^Uftbkc
£Z 8 88 8 I
ablhbfblb^htte
88 3 3
03 8 n olÈUêkk k^üt^
I I' olfep&fejlÈhUx 39
18 I oJtlJa 8 I I
81 3 iüb&£b 0£ I I
ahKbklb.fc\l>Hft
£9 03 3 I
S "MD •S *338'HO
I8t svuins-VFiHvaa
482 BRAHMA-SUTRAS
4 4 3 11
38 ^cq4«i+l!JIKl^o 2 1 1
^set(^ 5rf<nro 4 FTTö^qiW O 5
?Fï^sqmfM 14 10
?5flr'Tr^5<n^o 21 1 29
^^RfksTTra-o 34 3 22
14 ■qltt<.<<); 20
7 ^^biTTïRïT mjo 3
W%qnT 13 16
47 1 1 9
3 1 14 3 4 44
4 1 10
14 2 4 6
FT^sftr ^ 5ft%
» »
19 ^nft^[qmo 3 2 36
'Fq^qFPT^'TRo 25 5 R50 1 3 25
6 Iq^R^ïTT^ 1 1 8
GENERAL INDEX
Vedas» have no valuc for the various, like the S&n^lya etc.
knower of Brahman,16 are to be kept* s^arate,
the study ofj is a pre-requisite 367-8
for Veddnta and Pürva one is to be selected from among
Mlmdmsd, 19 the, relating to Brahman,
prescribe act^ 25-6 368
who are entitled to the study of yielding particular desires
the, 100-1, 108-11 may or may not be combined,
the world created from the, are 368-9
etemal, 102-4 scriptural statementó referring
Veddnta, holds the identity of the to enjoin meditation, 386-7
soul and Brahman, 18 Viraja, 339-40
room for reasoning in, 23 Vi^istadvaitavida,3
being hased on the Srutis is Vital force, see Prém
more authoritative than the Vydsa,344
Sdihkhya Smfti, 152
Veddnta texts, give the knowledge Waking state, is real in com-
of the real nature of the parison with dreams, 197-8
Self, 14-15, 18, 22 Water, crcated from firci 215-16
the main purport of the, is earth created from, 216-17
Brahman,25-7, 30,320 called Sraddha,263,266
are the only proof of Brahman, . as the dress of Prdna,330-1
30 Word, the relation laetween, and
refer to an intelligent principle its object is etemal, 102-03
as the First Cause, 36 the world originates from,
there is no conflict in the, with 102-4
respect to Brahman as the Work, on whom the scripttires
First Cause, 127-9 enjoin, 380-1
teach the Supreme Self, 377-8 the knower of the Self is not
Videhamtütti, luiower of Brahman boimd by the effects of, 381
attains,420 an indirect means of Know
Vidy5, Mu. 3. 1. 1. and Ka. ledge, 389-91
1. 3, 1 form one, 346-7 has no part in producing
Br. 3. 4. 1 and 3. 5. 1 form Liberation, 389-90
one, 348-9 the results of obligafory, is not
Bf. 5. 4. 1. and 5. 5. 2 form destroyed by Knowledge,
one, 350-51 421-3
Vidyas (Upilsands), what are the? regular, contributes to Know
315 ledge indirectly, 422
with identical or sinular forms done with a desire does not help
are one Vidya, 316-20 the origination of Knowledge,
particulars of identical, men- 423
tioned in diflerent places sacrificial, not combined with
are to he combined into one meditations also helps in the
meditation, 320-1 origination of knowledge,
having diflerent subject-matter 423
are different, 321-3 all, including PrSrabdha of the
identical, in the same S^khd Knower of Brahman are
have to be combined, 331-2 destroyed at death, 424-5
GENEBAL INDEX 495