An Introduction to The Brahma Sutras

http://www.sankeertanam.com/brahma_sutras.htm

“athAto Brahmajij~nAsA”

(Now therefore the Enquiry into Brahman)

VedAnta philosophy acknowledges the PrasthAna Traya as its

three authoritative primary sources. The texts comprising the
PrasthAna Traya are the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita and
the Brahma sUtra. The Upanishads are the sruti prasthAna, the
revealed texts (sruti - that which is heard); the Bhagavad-Gita
is the smriti prasthAna, composed by sages based on their
understanding of the VedAs (smriti - that which is
remembered); the Brahma sUtra is the nyAya prasthAna, the
logical text that sets forth the philosophy systematically
(nyAya - logic/order). No study of VedAnta is considered
complete without a close examination of the PrasthAna Traya.

While the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita are authoritative

VedAnta texts, it is in the Brahma sUtra that the teachings of
VedAnta are set forth in a systematic and logical order. The
Brahma sUtra is known by many names: it is also called the
VedAnta sUtra, Uttara-mimamsa sUtra, Shariraka sUtra and the
Bhikshu sUtra.

The Brahma sUtra consists of 555 aphorisms or sUtras, in 4

chapters, each chapter being divided into 4 sections each. The
first chapter (Samanvaya: harmony) explains that all the
VedAntic texts talk of Brahman, the ultimate reality, which is
the goal of life. The second chapter (Avirodha: non-conflict)
discusses and refutes the possible objections against VedAnta
philosophy. The third chapter (SAdhana: the means) describes
the process by which ultimate emancipation can be achieved.
The fourth chapter (Phala: the fruit) talks of the state that is
achieved in final emancipation.
Indian tradition identifies BAdarAyaNa, the author of the
Brahma SUtra, with VyAsa, the compiler of the VedAs. Many
commentaries have been written on this text, the earliest
extant one being the one by Adi ShaMkara. Later commentators
include BhAskara, YAdavaprakAsha, RAmAnuja, Keshava,
Neelakantha, Madhva, Baladeva, Vallabha, Vijnana Bhikshu,
VAcaspati and PadmapAda. Among all these, and other
commentaries, ShaMkara's commentary is considered as an
exemplary model of how a commentary should be written, and
most commentators are influenced by it, even when they
disagree with ShaMkara's interpretations.

Introduction

As is well-known, there are six schools of classical Indian

philosophy, namely:

· nyAya

· vaisheshhika

· sAMkhya

· yoga

· mImAmsa

· vedAnta

Each of these has as its authoritative source a composite text

that `threads' together all of the diverse points of doctrine
claimed by it. This text is called a collection of `sUtra's, pithy
statements that discourse upon some specific aspect of the
field -- and is the most important work relating to that doctrine,
as it codifies the entire spectrum of thought encompassed by
that doctrine, and serves as a point of reference for all matters
of philosophical import. Quite frequently, the plural nature of
the collection of sUtra-s is not made explicit, and one refers to
the entire text as such-and-such a sUtra, as if it were in fact a
single work. In his commentary, AnandatIrtha quotes the
following verse from the padma purANa to define what `sUtra'
means:
 alpAxaramasa.ndigdhaM sAravadvishvatomukham.h |
astobhamanavadyaM cha sUtraM sUtravido viduH ||

Pithy (using fewest possible letters), unambiguous, laying out

all the essential aspects of each topic, and dealing with all
aspects of the question, free of repetitiveness and flaw -- those
learned in the sUtra-s say that such is a sUtra.

Quite naturally, then, the author of the sUtra-s for each school
occupies the highest rank among the scholars of that school,
and is regarded as its founder or progenitor, and as the
primary guru of all others claiming loyalty to that scholarly
tradition. The authors of each school's sUtra, aptly called its
sUtrakAra-s, are:

• gautama for the nyAya school,

• kaNAda for the vaisheshhika school,
• kapila for the sAMkhya school,
• patanjali for the yoga school,
• jaimini for the mImAmsa school, and
• BAdarAyaNa for the vedAnta school.

Each school has its unique aspects whereby it tries to satisfy

the spiritual aspirations of its adherents. Of these, the vedAnta
school concerns itself with the understanding of Brahman, the
entity referred to in the VedAs and Upanishad-s, who is
variously described as the Creator, the Super soul, the
Supreme Self, etc. Thus, the vedAnta-sUtra of BAdarAyaNa is
more commonly known as the Brahma-sUtra.

The Brahma-sUtra is the authoritative exposition of vedAnta,

but it is by no means the first, and is designed to provide an
objective criticism of views held by others. Indeed, BAdarAyaNa
refers in that work to the views of other previous scholars such
as auDulomi, kAshakR^itsna, bAdari, Ashmarathya, etc.
He also makes references to jaimini, the mImAmsa scholar,
accepting the latter's views in a few instances and modifying
them in others. He also refers to himself by name, apparently
implying that he refers to some point he has expounded in
another work. As such, it is clear that the Brahma-sUtra was
written at a time when the six schools in general, and vedAnta
in particular, were already widely known, and discourse among
their scholars had already developed to a very great degree.

There is a tradition of thought that says that all scholars

named by BAdarAyaNa were in fact his own disciples and that
he has immortalized them through the medium of his sUtra-s,
by referring to their contributions in interpreting difficult
propositions, while supporting or modifying their views in his
final conclusions. After BAdarAyaNa, all scholars have accepted
his authority in the final interpretation of vedAnta.

There are three kinds of vedAntic texts, called the

prasthAna-traya, which are considered to be of prime
importance: these are the VedAs and Upanishads, the
Brahma-sUtra, and the Bhagavad-Gita.

It is possible to date the Bhagavad-Gita, and the

mahAbhArata that it is part of, to a time before the advent of
Buddhism. Considering that there is a specific reference to the
Brahma-sUtra in the 'gItA, in verse XIII-4 of the latter work, it is
possible to date the Brahma-sUtra also to a time before
Buddhism. In fact, bodhAyana, a scholar dated to 400 B.C.,
refers to the Bhagavad-Gita and mahAbhArata. In his
commentary upon the Brahma-sUtra, rAmAnuja refers to a
varttika (explanatory text) by bodhAyana in which the latter
shows familiarity with both the mImAmsa-sUtra and the
Brahma-sUtra, and in fact considers them to be two parts of a
complete exposition. Unfortunately, no copies of this varttika
survive to the present day, and it is also not quoted from, by
any other scholar. However, it may be presumed that the text
did exist in rAmAnuja's time, and combined with the known
familiarity of bodhAyana with the Bhagavad-Gita, goes to show
that the Brahma-sUtra was definitely already accepted as a
canonical text by his time.

A problem arises because most commentators upon the

Brahma-sUtra have held that it also paradoxically refers back
to the 'gItA in a few instances -- for instance, in saying `api
smaryate' in sUtra-s 2.3.44 and 4.2.20; how can both works
refer to each other, thus indicating that each of them was
written previous to the other?

This problem may be resolved if we consider that tradition

identifies BAdarAyaNa, the author of the Brahma-sUtra, with
veda-vyAsa, the author of the mahAbhArata (of which the
Bhagavad-Gita is a part). Although there seems to be little
evidence apart from the word of tradition to back up this claim,
it seems to make sense, since then the apparent paradox can
be resolved; the same author could very well have written both
works in any order; he could add a reference to an as-yet-
unwritten text, knowing that he was going to write it, and also
knowing what he was going to write in it.

It might be argued that at least one text has had spurious

insertions made into it to apparently refer to the other, and
that it is thus unnecessary to posit that the authors of the two
are the same. However, it is not found that the various
rescensions of the Brahma-sUtra are different, with some not
having the questionable references; all copies of the Brahma-
sUtra as obtained from a variety of sources carry them.
Moreover, considering the flow of the discourse in the
Bhagavad-Gita and the Brahma-sUtra, it seems very unlikely
that the references are spurious insertions; they fit in well with
the general background of the discussion, and do not stand out
as later insertions presumably would. Thus, the hypothesis that
the author of the Brahma-sUtra is also the author of the
Bhagavad-Gita stands reaffirmed.

Commentaries upon the Brahma-sUtra

Owing to its importance, the Brahma-sUtra has spawned a

rather large number of bhAshhya-s (commentaries), which
seek to amplify BAdarAyaNa's very terse writing. Some of the
more important bhAshhyakAra-s upon the Brahma-sUtra are
shaMkara, rAmAnuja, AnandatIrtha, nimbAraka, vallabha,
baladeva, etc. Each of these scholars has given his own
interpretation of what BAdarAyaNa really means to say. Since
the two entities jIva, or the individual self, and Brahman, can
either be (i) identical; (ii) identical with specialty; (iii) non-
identical; (iv) identical and non-identical, one has four basic
schools of thought within vedAnta upholding these views.

• shaMkara, the bhAshhyakAra of the advaita school,

argues that the individual soul and the Brahman are in
fact one and the same, and that the world of experience
is illusory; the purpose of one's existence is to obtain
release from the unreal world and attain complete union
with the Brahman, who also has no attributes.
• rAmAnuja, the bhAshhyakAra of the vishishhTAdvaita
school, argues that a state of qualified non-duality obtains
between the individual self and the Brahman, who is
identified with Vishnu, and that release from the non-
illusory world consists of obtaining a state of bliss similar
to that of the ever-liberated Brahman, who is endowed
with many good qualities.
• AnandatIrtha, the bhAshhyakAra of the dvaita school, is a
thorough dualist who claims a complete and eternally-
unchanging difference between the individual self, and
Brahman, which is due to their own immutable natures;
Brahman is identified with Vishnu, and release from the
cycle of repeated births and deaths in the world is
obtained by service to Vishnu, who alone is the Giver of
mukti (liberation).
• vallabha, the bhAshhyakAra of the shuddhAdvaita school,
also holds that the jIva and Brahman are identical, but his
Brahman is a personal Deity who is to be worshipped with
devotion.
• nimbAraka, the bhAshhyakAra of the dvaitAdvaita school,
tries to reconcile the views held by scholars of dvaita and
advaita into one framework.
• baladeva, the bhAshhyakAra of the bhedAbheda school,
also argues for simultaneous oneness and difference, but
rejects the advaitic view completely.

Observations:

· The Brahma-sUtra consists of 555 or 564 individual sUtra-

s, each of them, a complete discourse on a certain topic.
There is a tradition that says that the Brahma-sUtra must be
 written with an OM at the beginning and end of each sUtra.
The justification for this is said to be that since each sUtra is
itself a complete discourse rather than a mere statement in
a work, it has to have a shAnti-pATha at the beginning and
at the end, just as with complete works like the Bhagavad-
Gita or the Upanishads. However, the OMs are not
considered to be part of the sUtra-s themselves, and are
usually omitted from commentaries. However, they are to be
retained in uncommented texts, and are also to be included
when the text is recited.

· There are some differences in the number of adhikaraNa-

s (topics discussed) and sUtra-s, as accepted by various
commentators. For instance, shaMkara, rAmAnuja, and
AnandatIrtha have taken these as 192/555, 156/545, and
222/564 respectively. Though much of the differences arise
due to their clubbing some sUtra-s together or splitting them
in different ways, in some cases there are different readings
altogether as each tries to obtain a total and coherent
philosophical position by his own interpretation. However,
the division of the entire text into four chapters --
`samanvaya', 'avirodha', `sAdhana' and `phala' is
acceptable to all.

· It is interesting to know the objective of the composition.

According to AnandatIrtha and the other commentators,
BAdarAyaNa condensed and classified the VedAs, which
were limitless in extent and difficult to understand by
persons of severely limited intellectual capacities, into small
divisions and sub-divisions, so that each individual could
study one part; and he composed the Brahma-sUtra-s for
their correct interpretation. The very first two chapters
samanvaya (integration of the diverse texts into a
homogeneous total picture) and avirodha (removing all
possible objections and internal contradictions) as accepted
by all commentaries show this objective clearly.

· The approach adopted by the sUtrakAra is to refer to

some specific passage of the VedAs or Upanishads by a key
word, context, or hint as to the topic of discussion. He then
gives his own decision as to the conclusion to be reached, in
 one or two words, followed by the reasoning behind the
conclusion. Usually, the sUtra-s are stating the conclusion
without elaborating the pUrvapaksha (the extant proposition
or hypothesis which is examined and rejected). The aptness
of the commentary has to be judged by the correct
identification of the vishhaya vAkya (the original Vedic
statement referred to), consistency with the chapter, section
and subject discussed previously, avoidance of wasteful or
repetitive points, coherence with the system being
propounded as a whole, the logical structure indicated by
the sUtrakAra being shown correctly, etc. Some
commentators have rather arbitrarily assigned certain sUtra-
s as pUrvapaksha, although there is no indication in the
sUtra-s themselves to that effect, and although this strongly
militates against the notion that each sUtra is a complete
exposition upon a certain subject. AnandatIrtha holds that
all sUtra-s are themselves siddhAnta or conclusions, and
that there are none that are not so.

· BAdarAyaNa begins the work with `athAto

BrahmajiGYAsA', to mean something like, "Then, therefore
let us examine the subject of Brahman." It is not
immediately obvious what is being meant by saying "then
therefore." Various commentators thus set out to postulate
what BAdarAyaNa's intent is in saying that, and assume
backgrounds favorable to their doctrines. As a result, a
significant part of the debate among various schools of
vedAnta is about what is not said in the Brahma-sUtra but is
implied and left unstated. Each school tries to show why its
own postulation of the background is correct, and also tries
to refute other schools' assumptions to the contrary.
ShaMkara in particular finds it necessary to preface the main
body of his sUtra-bhAshhya with his own extraneous
dissertation called adhyAsabhAshhya, in which he describes
at great length the unreality of both the world and the
bondage of the individual. Such an act, which strongly
militates against the very concept and approach of an
explanatory work, attracts the charge by his opponents of
his having foisted his own opinions upon the author of the
 Brahma-sUtra, under the pretext of explaining the latter.
Even a biography of shaMkara written long after him seems
to symbolize and recognize the difficulty with his approach,
by stating that he had argued with BAdarAyaNa and
defeated him.

· Jaimini, the author of the mImAmsa-sUtra, is traditionally

regarded as a shishhya of BAdarAyaNa. Considering that the
two are seen in the mImAmsa-sUtra and the Brahma-sUtra
to have apparently conflicting opinions in some cases, it
would seem that Jaimini may have been an independent
mImAmsaka scholar before meeting BAdarAyaNa; he
presumably lost to the latter in debate and became his
student, as was the common practice of the day.

[Another view: From the Book "Outlines of Indian Philosophy"

by “Hiriyanna" (Motilal Banarsidas Publishers) Chapter III,
"Vedanta" - Page 338-

“(H)istorically, the two treaties were probably independent

with different authors Jaimini and BAdarAyaNa respectively
and they were later put together with suitable emendations by
someone who is described as Vyasa - "the arranger”. Upavarsa
the Vrttikara seems to have commented upon them in this
combined form. The date of the original work by BAdarAyaNa
is now believed to be about 400 A.D.”]

-Thiruvaiyaru
Krishnan

Additional Notes:

The Brahma sutras, also known as Vedanta Sutras, constitute the Nyaya prasthana, the
logical starting point of the Vedanta philosophy (Nyaya = logic/order). No study of
Vedanta is considered complete without a close examination of the Prasthana Traya, the
texts that stand as the three starting points. The Brahma Sutras are attributed to
Badarayana.
While the Upanishads (Sruti prasthana, the starting point of revelation) and the
Bhagavad-Gita (Smriti prasthana, the starting point of remembered tradition) are the
basic source texts of Vedanta, it is in the Brahma sutras that the teachings of Vedanta are
set forth in a systematic and logical order.

While the earlier commentators like Adi Shankara treat Badarayaņa, the author of the
Brahma Sutra, as a distinct person, Vaishnavite tradition identifies him with Krishna
Dwipayana Vyasa, the author of the Mahabharata.

Commentaries
Many commentaries have been written on this text, the earliest extant one being the one
by Adi Shankara. His commentary set forth the non-dualistic (Advaita) interpretation of
the Vedanta, and was commented upon by Vacaspati and Padmapada. These sub-
commentaries, in turn, inspired other derivative texts in the Advaita school.

Ramanuja also wrote a commentary on the Brahma sutra, called Sri Bhasya, which lays
the foundations of the Vishishtadvaita tradition. In this, he firmly refutes the Advaita view
as proposed by Adi Shankara in his commentary.

Other commentators on the Brahma Sutras, belonging to other schools of Vedanta,

include Bhaskara, Yadavaprakasa, Kesava, Nilakaņţha, Madhvacharya, Vallabha,
Vijnanabhiksu, Nimbarka, and Baladeva Vidyābhūshaņa

Overview
The Brahma Sutras are also known by other names: Vedunta Sutras, Uttara Mīmamsa-
sutras, Sariraka Sutras, Sariraka Mimamsa-sutras. Vaishnavas also call this the Bhikshu
sutras.

The Brahma Sutras attempt to reconcile the seemingly contradictory and diverse
statements of the various Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, by placing each teaching in
a doctrinal context. The word sutra means thread, and the Brahma sutras literally stitch
together the various Vedanta teachings into a logical and self-consistent whole.

However, the Brahma Sutras are so terse that not only are they capable of being
interpreted in multiple ways, but they are often incomprehensible without the aid of the
various commentaries handed down in the main schools of Vedanta thought.

The Vedanta Sutras supply ample evidence that at a very early time, i.e. a period before
their own final composition, there were differences of opinion among the various
interpreters of the Vedanta. Quoted in the Vedanta Sutras are opinions ascribed to
Audulomi, Karshnagni, Kasakŗtsna, Jaimini and Bādari, in addition to Vyasa.

The Brahma Sutras consist of 555 aphorisms or sutras, in four chapters (adhyaya), each
chapter being divided into four quarters (pada). Each quarter consists of several groups of
sutras called Adhikaraņas or topical sections. An Adhikaraņa usually consists of several
sūtras, but some have only one sūtra.
The first chapter (Samanvaya: harmony) explains that all the Vedanta texts talk of
Brahman, the ultimate reality, which is the goal of life. The very first sutra offers an
indication into the nature of the subject matter. VS 1.1.1 athāto brahma jijnasa - Now:
therefore the inquiry (into the real nature) of Brahman.

The second chapter (Avirodha: non-conflict) discusses and refutes the possible objections
to Vedanta philosophy.

The third chapter (Sadhana: the means) describes the process by which ultimate
emancipation can be achieved.

The fourth chapter (Phala: the fruit) talks of the state that is achieved in final
emancipation.

These sutras systematize the jnanakanda (path of wisdom, as opposed to Karmakanda, the
path of duty) of the Veda, by combining the two tasks of concisely stating the teaching of
the Veda and argumentatively establishing the specific interpretation of the Veda adopted
in the sutras.

The sutras also discuss the role of karma and God and critically address the various
doctrines associated with Buddhism, Jainism, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Shaiva, Shakta,
Atheism, and Sankhya philosophies