वेदान्तमीमांसाशास्त्रस्य व्याचिख्यासितस्येदमादिमं सूत्रम् —
This is the first Sutra of the Shastra of the consideration of Vedanta which is desired to be explained.
अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा ॥ १ ॥
Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahma (should he taken up). ॥ 1 ॥
तत्र अथशब्दः आनन्तर्यार्थः परिगृह्यते; नाधिकारार्थः, ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाया अनधिकार्यत्वात् । मङ्गलस्य च वाक्यार्थे समन्वयाभावात् । अर्थान्तरप्रयुक्त एव ह्यथशब्दः श्रुत्या मङ्गलप्रयोजनो भवति । पूर्वप्रकृतापेक्षायाश्च फलत आनन्तर्याव्यतिरेकात् ।
The word ‘Now’ is to be understood as meaning something which follows (after the attainment of the requisite spiritual qualities) and not as something which introduces a subject, because the desire to know Brahma is not something which is possible to be introduced as a subject, nor can the word mean an auspicious recitation (Mangala), as it cannot be properly construed in the meaning of the sentence. The word ‘Now’ which is used in a different meaning, has still the effect of an auspicious recitation by it's being merely heard. The expectation of its referring to something relevant to something else which has gone before is virtually not different from a thing’s following after.
सति च आनन्तर्यार्थत्वे, यथा धर्मजिज्ञासा पूर्ववृत्तं वेदाध्ययनं नियमेनापेक्षते, एवं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासापि यत्पूर्ववृत्तं नियमेनापेक्षते तद्वक्तव्यम् । स्वाध्यायानन्तर्यं तु समानम् । नन्विह कर्मावबोधानन्तर्यं विशेषः।
The word being understood then, as indicating something which comes after something else, that something else which is expected to have been accomplished, before the desire for the knowledge of Brahma (can be entertained) needs to be mentioned, just as in the case of a desire for the knowledge of duty (Dharma) the study of the Veda is expected to have been accomplished already, before such desire for the knowledge of duty (is entertained). The coming after the study of the Veda, is common (to both). But, (says the opponent) the peculiar difference Here (i.e. in the case of the desire for the knowledge of Brahma) is its coming after the (previous) knowledge of the acts of duty.
न; धर्मजिज्ञासायाः प्रागपि अधीतवेदान्तस्य ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपपत्तेः । यथा च हृदयाद्यवदानानामानन्तर्यनियमः, क्रमस्य विवक्षितत्वात् , न तथेह क्रमो विवक्षितः । शेषशेषित्वे अधिकृताधिकारे वा प्रमाणाभावात् । धर्मब्रह्मजिज्ञासयोः फलजिज्ञास्यभेदाच्च ।
No (we reply). In the case of a person who has studied the Vedanta, it is reasonably sustainable, that the desire for the knowledge of Brahma may arise (in him) even before the arising of the desire for the knowledge of duty. Here (i.e. in the case of the desire to know Brahma) no particular serial order is intended to be prescribed (by the Scriptures), just as in the case of the desire for the knowledge of duty, a serial order is intended to be prescribed, in as much as there is a rule about (a particular thing) coming after (another particular thing) such as in the cutting off of the heart (of the animal sacrificed) etc., or as there is no proof to hold, that as between the desire for the knowledge of duty and the desire for the knowledge of Brahma, there is a relation of one thing being the principal thing and another a subsidiary thing, or as there is no proof of any similar relation as between competency (Adhikara) and a person who has such competency (Adhikrita), and, as there is a difference between the desire to know ‘duty’ and the desire to know ‘Brahma’, and also a difference in their results and the things to be known.
अभ्युदयफलं धर्मज्ञानम् , तच्चानुष्ठानापेक्षम्; निःश्रेयसफलं तु ब्रह्मविज्ञानम् , न चानुष्ठानान्तरापेक्षम् । भव्यश्च धर्मो जिज्ञास्यो न ज्ञानकालेऽस्ति, पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रत्वात् । इह तु भूतं ब्रह्म जिज्ञास्यं नित्यत्वान्न पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रम् ।
Knowledge of duty has for its result secular prosperity (Abhyudaya) and it expects the performance of certain actions (such as sacrifices etc.). The knowledge of Brahma, on the other hand, has for its result eternal bliss (Nihshreyasa) and it does not expect the performance of any act. Religious duty is something which is to be done at some future time and it does not exist at the time of the acquirement of its knowledge and it depends upon the activity of a man. Here on the other hand it is Brahma which is actually eternally in existence, that is desired to be known, and being thus eternal does not depend upon any action on the part of a man.
चोदनाप्रवृत्तिभेदाच्च । या हि चोदना धर्मस्य लक्षणं सा स्वविषये नियुञ्जानैव पुरुषमवबोधयति । ब्रह्मचोदना तु पुरुषमवबोधयत्येव केवलम् । अवबोधस्य चोदनाजन्यत्वात् , न पुरुषोऽवबोधे नियुज्यते । यथा अक्षार्थसन्निकर्षेणार्थावबोधे, तद्वत् ।
Also as between the two there is a difference in the operation of the scriptural injunction. Injunction which is a characteristic of religious duty instructs a person and at the same time enjoins him to the performance of the same. The science of Brahma however merely instructs a person about Brahma, but it does not enjoin a man to any act of acquiring knowledge. The case is similar to the perception of a sense-object merely by the connection of a sense-organ with its object.
तस्मात्किमपि वक्तव्यम् , यदनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपदिश्यत इति । उच्यते — नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेकः, इहामुत्रार्थफलभोगविरागः, शमदमादिसाधनसम्पत् , मुमुक्षुत्वं च । तेषु हि सत्सु, प्रागपि धर्मजिज्ञासाया ऊर्ध्वं च, शक्यते ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितुं ज्ञातुं च; न विपर्यये । तस्मात् अथशब्देन यथोक्तसाधनसम्पत्त्यानन्तर्यमुपदिश्यते ॥
Therefore it is necessary to mention something, after (the accomplishment of) which the inquiry into Brahma is advised. We reply — Discrimination between the eternal thing and a transitory thing, distaste for the enjoyment of things here in this world as well as in the world beyond, equipment of oneself with tranquillity, self-restraint, and such other similar means, and the desire for Final Release. When these are present, it is possible to desire the knowledge of Brahma and to realize it actually, even before the desire for the knowledge of duty or after it, just as you please. The word ‘Now’ indicates — following after the acquisition of the means as mentioned (above).
ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासा ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा । ब्रह्म च वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणम् ‘जन्माद्यस्य यतः’ इति । अत एव न ब्रह्मशब्दस्य जात्याद्यर्थान्तरमाशङ्कितव्यम् । ब्रह्मण इति कर्मणि षष्ठी, न शेषे; जिज्ञास्यापेक्षत्वाज्जिज्ञासायाः। जिज्ञास्यान्तरानिर्देशाच्च ।
‘Brahma-jijnasa’ is the desire to know Brahma. Brahma is that whose definition will be stated presently in the subsequent Sutra, viz., “From which the origination of creation etc., (comes about).” One should not therefore think that the word ‘Brahma’ may mean the Brahmana caste. The form ‘Brahmanah’ is in grammar the ‘Karmani’ genitive of Brahma and not the ‘Sheshe’ genitive, because the desire for the knowledge of Brahma presupposes an object such as Brahma, of which knowledge is to be desired, and because no other such object is here indicated.
ननु शेषषष्ठीपरिग्रहेऽपि ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासाकर्मत्वं न विरुध्यते, सम्बन्धसामान्यस्य विशेषनिष्ठत्वात् । एवमपि प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मणः कर्मत्वमुत्सृज्य सामान्यद्वारेण परोक्षं कर्मत्वं कल्पयतो व्यर्थः प्रयासः स्यात् ।
But (says the opponent) even if we understand ‘Brahmanah’ as a ‘Sheshe’ genitive, the fact that Brahma is the object of the desire to know is not contradicted, for the general relation (indicated by the genitive case) may base itself on the particular relation (indicated by the ‘Karmani’ genitive). We reply — In giving up Brahma as the object directly indicated (by understanding ‘Brahmanah’ as the ‘Karmani’ genitive) and then by accepting it as the object indicated, in an indirect way (as indicated by the ‘Sheshe’ genitive) you will be taking needless trouble.
न व्यर्थः, ब्रह्माश्रिताशेषविचारप्रतिज्ञानार्थत्वादिति चेत् न; प्रधानपरिग्रहे तदपेक्षितानामर्थाक्षिप्तत्वात् । ब्रह्म हि ज्ञानेनाप्तुमिष्टतमत्वात्प्रधानम् । तस्मिन्प्रधाने जिज्ञासाकर्मणि परिगृहीते, यैर्जिज्ञासितैर्विना ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितं न भवति, तान्यर्थाक्षिप्तान्येवेति न पृथक्सूत्रयितव्यानि । यथा ‘राजासौ गच्छति’ इत्युक्ते सपरिवारस्य राज्ञो गमनमुक्तं भवति, तद्वत् । श्रुत्यनुगमाच्च ।
If the opponent were to say that it would not be undertaking needless trouble (in understanding ‘Brahmanah’ as the ‘Sheshe’ genitive) as it would mean the desire to know all that which is dependent on the word Brahma, we reply — no, because when we accept the principal thing (as indicated by the ‘Karmani’ genitive) it also necessarily implies that all those secondary things meant by the word Brahma, are included in the principal thing. Brahma being the most desirable thing to be realized by knowledge, is of course the principal thing. When that principal thing is once accepted as the object of the desire to know, all those other (secondary) things,, without desiring to know which Brahma cannot be properly desired to be known, are necessarily implied, and need not be separately mentioned in the Sutra. For when we say ‘The king is passing by’, it implies that the passing by of the king along with his retinue is meant. It (i.e. that Brahma is the object as indicated by the ‘Karmani’ genitive) is in consonance with the Scriptures.
The Scriptural passages “That from which all these things are born” (Tait. 3.1) etc. and “Desire to know that, that is Brahma” (Tait. 3.1) actually indicate that Brahma is the object indicated by the ‘Karmani’ genitive and that alone will be in consonance with the Sutra. Therefore the form ‘Brahmanah’ is the ‘Karmani’ genitive.
ज्ञातुमिच्छा जिज्ञासा । अवगतिपर्यन्तं ज्ञानं सन्वाच्याया इच्छायाः कर्म, फलविषयत्वादिच्छायाः । ज्ञानेन हि प्रमाणेनावगन्तुमिष्टं ब्रह्म । ब्रह्मावगतिर्हि पुरुषार्थः, निःशेषसंसारबीजाविद्याद्यनर्थनिबर्हणात् । तस्माद्ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितव्यम् ॥
‘Jijnasa’ means the desire to know. Complete comprehension is the object of the suffix ‘San’ which means desire, because desire has for its object the result of action. Knowledge is the only means of comprehending Brahma, and the complete knowledge of Brahma is the highest aim (of man) through the destruction of the evil of Nescience which is the root-cause (lit., the seed) of all transmigratory existence. Therefore the knowledge of Brahma should be desired.
तत्पुनर्ब्रह्म प्रसिद्धमप्रसिद्धं वा स्यात् । यदि प्रसिद्धं न जिज्ञासितव्यम् । अथाप्रसिद्धं नैव शक्यं जिज्ञासितुमिति । उच्यते — अस्ति तावद्ब्रह्म नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावं सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्तिसमन्वितम् । ब्रह्मशब्दस्य हि व्युत्पाद्यमानस्य नित्यशुद्धत्वादयोऽर्थाः प्रतीयन्ते, बृंहतेर्धातोरर्थानुगमात् । सर्वस्यात्मत्वाच्च ब्रह्मास्तित्वप्रसिद्धिः । सर्वो ह्यात्मास्तित्वं प्रत्येति, न ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति । यदि हि नात्मास्तित्वप्रसिद्धिः स्यात् , सर्वो लोकः ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति प्रतीयात् । आत्मा च ब्रह्म ।
But again (says the opponent), that Brahma must either be well-known or not known at all. If it is well-known, it need not be desired to be known. If it is not known at all, it would not be possible to desire to know it. We reply — Brahma which is omniscient, all-powerful, and of the nature of eternal purity, intelligence and freedom, exists of course. Etymologically, from the root ‘Briha’ we understand such things as eternal purity, etc. The existence of Brahma is moreover wellknown, because of its being the Self of every one. Every one experiences the existence of the Self, and does not experience that he is not. If the well-known existence of the Self were not to be so in fact, every one would experience that he does not exist. The Self of course is Brahma.
यदि तर्हि लोके ब्रह्म आत्मत्वेन प्रसिद्धमस्ति, ततो ज्ञातमेवेत्यजिज्ञास्यत्वं पुनरापन्नम्; न । तद्विशेषं प्रति विप्रतिपत्तेः । देहमात्रं चैतन्यविशिष्टमात्मेति प्राकृता जना लोकायतिकाश्च प्रतिपन्नाः । इन्द्रियाण्येव चेतनान्यात्मेत्यपरे । मन इत्यन्ये । विज्ञानमात्रं क्षणिकमित्येके । शून्यमित्यपरे । अस्ति देहादिव्यतिरिक्तः संसारी कर्ता भोक्तेत्यपरे । भोक्तैव केवलं न कर्तेत्येके । अस्ति तद्व्यतिरिक्त ईश्वरः सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिरिति केचित् । आत्मा स भोक्तुरित्यपरे । एवं बहवो विप्रतिपन्ना युक्तिवाक्यतदाभाससमाश्रयाः सन्तः ।
But (says the opponent), if Brahma is known to everybody as the Self, then being already so known, it comes to this, that in that case there could not be any desire to know it. No (we reply), because there is a conflict of opinion as to its special nature. Unsophisticated persons and the Lokayatikas understand that the mere body as such endowed with intelligence is the Self. Others that the sense-organs which are intelligent are the Self. Some say that the mind is Atma, some say that it is merely momentary knowledge. Some others say that the Self is merely a vacuum (Shunya). Others again say that an entity different from the body which is an agent, an experiencer, and a transmigratory being is in fact in existence. Some others say that the Self is an experiencer only but not an agent. Some others think that there is a Lord who is omniscient and all-powerful, and is different from the Self. Others that the Atma is the Self of the experiencing Jiva. In this manner there are many who have resorted to fallacious reasoning or the Scriptures as an authority and have differed amongst themselves in their view (as to what the Self i.e. Brahma is).
तत्राविचार्य यत्किञ्चित्प्रतिपद्यमानो निःश्रेयसात्प्रतिहन्येत, अनर्थं चेयात् । तस्माद्ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपन्यासमुखेन वेदान्तवाक्यमीमांसा तदविरोधितर्कोपकरणा निःश्रेयसप्रयोजना प्रस्तूयते ॥ १ ॥
Under these circumstances if one were to conclude recklessly and to understand something else (as the Self), one may miss Final Beatitude and may be ruined. Hence now begins, under the designation of ‘an inquiry into Brahma’, an analysis of the Vedanta texts with the help of Logic (Tarka) conformable to the Scriptures, having the highest Beatitude as its reward.