Brahma-Sūtra 1.4.11

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.11 by Roma Bose:

“Not on account of the collection of number even, on account of diversity, and on account of excess.”

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

“Even on account of the collection of number” in the text ‘In whom the five people and the ether are based’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.17; Śat. Br.14.7.2.19^[1]), it is not to be said that the twenty-five principles, beginning with pradhāna, are based on Scripture, so what dispute can there be regarding the knowability of one pradhāna from Scripture?^[2] Why? “On account of diversity,” i.e. because the objects which are based on Brahman, established in Scripture and denoted by the term ‘in whom’, are different from the objects established in the Tantra (i.e. the Sāṃkhya-smṛti), since the former are found to have Brahman for their soul; “and on account of the excess” of Brahman, the support, and likewise of the ether.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

In the previous aphorism, it has been shown that the text about the unborn one, not referable to pradhāna, as admitted by the Sāṃkhyas on the ground of texts like: ‘The self-power of the Deity’ (Śvet, 1.3), refers to Brahman on the ground that it refers to His power, viz. pradhāna, as admitted by the Vedantins. In the very same manner, by showing that^[3] the text about the ‘five five-people’ refers to the vital-breath and the rest, based on Brahman, on the ground of the pronoun (‘in whom’) and so on, leading to the nullification of the number admitted by the Saṃkhyas, (viz. twenty-five), the reverend author of the aphorisms is confirming his contention that pradhāna has never been mentioned in Scripture.

In the sixth chapter^[4] of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, immediately after the introduction: ‘That the gods worship as the light of lights, as life, as immortality’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.16; Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.7.2.20^[5]), we read the following: ‘In whom the five five-people and the ether are based, him alone I, the knower, the immortal, know as the soul, the immortal Brahman’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.17; Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.7.2.19). Here a doubt arises, viz. whether by the phrase; ‘five five-people’, meaning five groups of five, the twenty-five principles, admitted by the Saṃkhyas, are denoted, or the vital-breath and the rest, five in number and called ‘five-people’ (pañca-jana). The prima facie view is as follows: We get here the twenty-five principles, mentioned in Scripture and determined more specially in the Sāṃkhya-smṛti. In the Ṣaṣṭī-saṃhitā^[6], we read the following,—beginning: ‘Being struck^[7] by the three kinds of sorrow, (one undertakes) an enquiry into the cause of their removal’ (Sāṃkhya-kārikā 1), and continuing: ‘The primal cause prakṛti is not an effect; the seven objects beginning with the mahat are causes as well as effects; sixteen objects are effects (only); puruṣa is neither a cause nor an effect’ (Sāṃkhya-kārikā 3^[8]).

With regard to it, we reply: “Not even on account of the collection of number”; The word “even” implies possibility.^[9] In spite of the fact that the number twenty-five is found in this text, prakṛti and the rest have not Scripture as their authority. Why? “On account of diversity”, i.e. because the twenty-five principles, mentioned in Smṛti, cannot be arranged in five groups of five each, they being of various kinds. There can be numeration or grouping of objects only with reference to a class, a common quality and so on, e.g. when we say: ‘A group of five cows’, ‘a group of five learned men’. But here we find no common cause for grouping five objects under each pentad. In such eases as: ‘seven are causes as well as effects’, ‘sixteen are effects (only)’ and so on, on the other hand, there do exist causes for such groupings.^[10]

Or, else (an alternative explanation of the word ‘nānābhāvāt’), ‘on account of the absence of plurality’. That is, all the objects mentioned in the Vedānta having Brahman for their soul, there is no absolute plurality, in accordance with the statement: ‘All this has that for its soul’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.7; 6.9.4; 6.10.3-6.16.3), and also in accordance with the teaching contained here, viz, ‘In whom the five five-people and the ether are based’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.17). The sense is that if the twenty-five principles, admitted by the Sāṃkhyas, be accepted here, then, they not having Brahman for their soul, plurality will result, contradicting Scripture.

Or, rather, the principles, admitted by our opponents and independent of Brahman, being distinct from those that are based on Brahman, in accordance with the text: ‘In whom the five five-people’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.17), “and on account of excess”, there is not even the number twenty-five here. On the contrary, “on account of the excess”, i.e. surplus, viz. the Supreme Soul, the support of all, indicated by the pronoun ‘in whom’, and the ether, twenty-five principles are not denoted.

The meaning of the text is as follows: ‘The gods worship that’, viz. Brahman. What is that? ‘That which is the light of lights’, i.e. of sun and the rest; ‘life’, i.e. the cause of the longevity of its own devotees; ‘immortal’, i.e. the object to be attained during the state of release, this is the sense of the introductory text (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4-16, etc.). ‘In whom’, i.e. in Brahman, ‘the five five-people are based’. The compound ‘five-people’ (pañca-jana) is to be explained in accordance with the rule: ‘Words indicating a quarter or a number are compounded (with words in the same case^[11]) to designate a name (and the compound is a tat-puruṣa)’ (Pāṇini-sūtra 2.1.50; Siddhānta-kaumudī 727^[12]). The word ‘five-people’ is here understood as a name, since the meaning of the component parts (i.e. the number five) is not intended to be designated. Just as by the expression ‘seven sages’ each of the seven sages is denoted, so by the word ‘five-people’ as well. On the enquiry: How many five-people are there? the adjective ‘five’ is added.^[13] As Yājñavalkya says: ‘In whom the ether is based that alone is Brahman, the support of all and immortal. He who knows the Highest Self, to be approached by the freed, the soul, the cause of all existence and activity, becomes immortal, so I think. He who does not know Him does not become free’.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P. 1090, line 3. Quoted by Śaṅkara Rāmānuja, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[2]:

That is, all the twenty-five principles of the Sāṃkhyas can be known from Scripture, not to speak of pradhāna alone.

[3]:

Here the śatṛ-suffix implies reason.

[4]:

Ought to be fourth chapter.

[5]:

P. 1090, line 5.

[6]:

That is a Sāṃkhya treatise or a saṃhitā or treatise dealing with the sixty ideas peculiar to the Sāṃkhyas.

[7]:

Correct quotation: ‘abhighātāt’ which is translated here .Vide Sāṃkhya-kārikā 1, p. 1.

[8]:

P. 4.

[9]:

I.e. even if it be possible to understand here the number intended by the Sāṃkhyas, still then the Sāṃkhya view cannot be said to be referred to here. It will be shown later that it is not really even possible to understand here the number twenty-five intended by the Sāṃkhyas.

[10]:

I.e. A group consists of a certain number of similar objects. But here it is impossible to divide the twenty-five Sāṃkhya principles into five groups, each, containing five similar principles. Hence it cannot be said that ‘five five-people’ means 5 x 5 = 25 principles of the Sāṃkhyas.

[11]:

In accordance with the previous Pāṇini-sūtra sūtra 2.1.49.

[12]:

P. 509, vol. 1.,

[13]:

I.e. the expression ‘five-people’ denotes the name of a certain class of beings, and the expression ‘five five-people’ denotes that there are five classes of such beings, just as the expression ‘seven sages’ denotes a certain class of sages, (i.e. stars) and the expression ‘seven seven-sages’ denotes that there are seven classes of such beings. What these classes of beings called ‘five-people’ are is indicated in the next sūtra.